late enrollment in primary education: causes and

Transkript

LATE ENROLLMENT IN PRIMARY EDUCATION:
CAUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION
LATE ENROLLMENT IN PRIMARY EDUCATION:
CAUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION
Research Examining the Factors Associated with Late Primary School Enrollment in
Most Problematic Provinces and Developing Strategies for Promoting Timely Enrollment in Turkey.
The contents can only be used with references.
The ideas presented in the publication belong to the authors.
MEB Primary Education General Directorate
Bakanlıklar - Ankara
Tel: 0 312. 413 15 94 / 0 312. 417 71 05
E-posta: [email protected]
web: http://iogm.meb.gov.tr
UNICEF Turkey
2. Cadde No:11 Birlik Mahallesi
Çankaya - ANKARA - TURKEY
www.unicef.org.tr
ISBN No: 978 - 92 - 806 - 4577 - 4
First Edition: ANKARA, AUGUST 2011
Graphic Design : Netvizyon Mediapark
Printing: Aydoğdu Ofset
Research Team
Prof. Dr. Tanju Gürkan: Project Coordinator
Prof. Dr. Korkut Tuna: Qualitative Research Coordinator
Assist. Prof. Dr. İbrahim Demir: Member of the Analysis and Report Writing Team
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Metindoğan Wise: Member of the Analysis and Report Writing Team
Mustafa Şen: Project Administrative Director
Nuran Köse: Assistant Director/Communication Coordinator
Ebru Yavuz Tör (MSc): Quantitative Research Coordinator
Talin Evyapan: Member of the Analysis and Report Writing Team
Niğmet Balcı: Field Coordinator
Nilgün Sözer: Assistant Field Coordinator
Funda Demir: Data Entry Coordinator
İhsan Aktaş: Member of the Qualitative Research Team
Tayfun Şahin: Member of the Qualitative Research Team
Gülenden Yıldırım: Member of the Qualitative Research Team
This research was conducted out by GENAR, a research company appointed by UNICEF for Ministry of National Education,
General Directorate of Primary Education
2
FOREWORD
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which are regarded highly by international community, emphasize that everyone has the right
to access to the basic education. In order to provide the right of education for all children -boys and
girls- our government made amendments in the constitution, legislation and regulations. Besides that
global principles and generally recognized goals concerning primary education have been committed
and ensured by policies and acts of the state. All national development plans consist of objectives to
provide access to primary education for all children including boys and girls.
In order to ensure that all children -girls and boys- have access to the basic education, Ministry of
National Education has implemented numerous comprehensive programs such as “Capacity Building
Support Project for The Ministry of National Education” (MEBGEP), “Support to Basic Education Program”
(SBEP), “Let’s Go to School”, Girls, “Catch up Education”.
Additionally, it has been required to renew strategies and policies to provide access and attendance
to primary education. The researches aiming to develop evidence-based strategy have been carried
out such as The Need Analyses upon Non-Attendance and The Risk of Drop-Out, Research as Interim
Evaluation of Catch-up Education Program, The Need Analyses on Catch-up Education. Late Enrollment
Research, one of these researches, has been operated via the analyses of the indicators of access to
primary education that signify low enrollment rates of 6 years-old. The new policies and strategies
based on research findings have been improved such as the application of “e-Registration”, “My Child
is Going to School” a Guidebook for Parents, a Guidebook for teacher candidates which is entitled as
“Welcome, My Teacher” and the letters to parents of students who are going to be enrolled in primary
schools etc.
I wish that this research, as an important instrument for developing policies to respond to the
problem of late enrollment which has a negative impact on access to primary education, will shed light
on works of education policy makers, practitioners and researchers; and will broaden horizons of them.
Ahmet Murat Altuğ
General Director of Primary Education
3
4
Table of Contens
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ......................................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 19
ABBREVATIONS ......................................................................................................... 21
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 22
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 24
1.1.Problem ..................................................................................................... 26
1.1.1. Population of children between 6-13 years of age in
Turkey ........................................................................................................... 26
1.1.2. School enrollment rates disaggregated by academic year
and gender ..................................................................................................... 27
1.2. Purpose and the significance of the study ............................................. 30
1.3. Net school enrollment rates of the provinces based on
socio-economic development index ............................................................... 34
2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 36
2.1. Research population ................................................................................ 36
2.2. Research sample ..................................................................................... 36
2.2.1. Sample for quantitative research ................................................... 36
2.2.2. Sample for qualitative research ..................................................... 42
2.2.2.1. Focus group meetings .............................................................. 42
2.2.2.2 Semi-structured interviews ...................................................... 43
2.3. Data collection techniques ..................................................................... 43
2.3.1. Data from quantitative research .................................................... 43
2.3.2. Quantitative research measurement .............................................. 44
2.3.3. Sampling techniques for qualitative research ............................... 44
2.3.3.1 Focus groups .............................................................................. 44
2.3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews ...................................................... 45
2.4. Data collection procedure ........................................................................ 47
2.5. Limitations ................................................................................................ 48
2.6. Data analysis and the research report .................................................... 49
2.7. Conceptual definitions .............................................................................. 50
2.7.1. Not enrolling in school on time ....................................................... 50
2.7.2. Late enrollment/Late entrants ..................................................
50
2.7.3. No enrollment/Unenrolled children ................................................. 50
3. FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 50
3.1. Household members ..........................................................................
50
3.1.1. Number of people living in the household ...................................... 50
3.1.2. Relationship status of the household members living together ............. 51
5
6
52
52
53
Table of Contens
3.1.3. Age distribution of the household members .................................
3.1.4. Gender distribution of the household members ...........................
3.1.5. Educational distribution of the household members ...................
3.1.6. Relationship between education and gender based on living
in rural or urban residential areas .............................................................
3.1.7. Relationship between age and sex based on living in rural
and urban residential areas .......................................................................
3.1.8. Relationship between education and sex for household
members 15 years and older .....................................................................
3.1.9. Employment status of the household members ...........................
3.1.10. Employment status of the household members 15 years
of age and above ........................................................................................
3.1.11. Whether the household members have social security .............
3.2. Characteristics of children in the household .........................................
3.2.1. Number of children in the household .............................................
3.2.2. Children living outside of home ......................................................
3.2.3. Whether students in the household attend regional boarding
schools .........................................................................................................
3. 3. Characteristics of the parents ................................................................
3.3.1. Whether the mothers and fathers are biological parents ............
3.3.2. Characteristics of the mothers .......................................................
3.3.2.1. Ages and the marital statuses of the mothers .......................
3.3.2.2. Educational status of mothers .................................................
3.3.2.3. Employment status of the mothers .........................................
3.3.3. Characteristics of the fathers ......................................................
3.3.3.1. Ages and the marital statuses of the fathers .........................
3.3.3.2. Employment status of the fathers ...........................................
3.3.4. Not enrolling in school on time and parental education ..............
3.4. Household characteristics .......................................................................
3.4.1. Household incomes and expenses .................................................
3.4.2. Ownership status of the home the families live in ........................
3.4.3. The size of the home .......................................................................
3.4.4. Social and economical factors associated with not
enrolling in school on time ........................................................................
3.5. General characteristics of children who were born in 2001 ................
3.5.1. School enrollment status of children born in 2001 ......................
3.5.2. Sex of children who were not enrolled to school on time ............
3.5.3. Knowledge of the participant about the actual age of
the child .......................................................................................................
53
57
58
59
59
61
61
61
63
64
64
64
66
66
67
67
67
67
69
69
70
70
72
73
74
76
76
77
77
Table of Contens
3.5.4. Not enrolling in school on time, child’s age and being
unenrolled ........................................................................................................ 80
3.6. General health of children who were born in 2001 .............................. 82
3.6.1. Health status of children based on the provinces they
live in ........................................................................................................... 84
3.6.2. Not enrolling in school on time and child’s development ............ 88
3.6.3. Families’ knowledge of children’s height and weight ................... 89
3.7. Knowledge of expected child age for school enrollment ..................... 93
3.7.1. Participants’ knowledge of the expected time for school
enrollment .................................................................................................. 93
3.7.2. Relationship between selected characteristics of the participants
and their knowledge of legal age for school enrollment .................................... 95
3.7.3. Not enrolling in school on time and enrollment age for
school ........................................................................................................... 99
3.7.4. How the information about the age for school enrollment
is obtained .................................................................................................................. 100
3.7.5. Participant responses about whether they thought
their children were enrolled in school on time or not ............................. 101
3.8. Reasons for not enrolling in school on time ......................................... 104
3.8.1. Reasons for late enrollment ........................................................... 104
3.8.2. Factor analysis examining the reasons for late
school enrollment ...................................................................................... 110
3.8.3. Reasons for no school enrollment in the 2007 – 2008
academic year ............................................................................................ 121
3.8.4. Late enrollment in school and social, cultural,
economic, environmental, and family-related factors ........................... 122
3.9. Examination of the reasons for late enrollment for in
association with various factors ........................................................... 125
3.9.1. The reasons effective in children enrolling in school
after a year delay ..........................................................................
133
3.9.2. Reasons for late school enrollment according to
the other social stakeholders ................................................................... 135
3.9.3. Knowledge of laws concerning school enrollment ............................ 136
3.10. Whether families received guidance about the school
enrollment age ................................................................................................ 142
3.11. Decision makers for children’s enrollment in school the
following year .................................................................................................. 143
3.12. Work that has been done to promote timely enrollment
of children in schools ......................................................................................144
7
Table of Contens
3.13. Activities children were that not enrolled in school on time
engaged in during 2007 – 2008 academic year .....................................
3.14. People who were influential in the decision to not enroll
children in school ......................................................................................
3.15. Educational opportunities provided for the child while the
child was out of school and activities the child engaged in ................
3. 15.1. How did the child spend a typical day when the child
was out of school? .............................................................................
3.15.2. Activities children engage in during a typical day in
the late enrollment group .................................................................
3.15.3. Frequency of the activities the children engage in
during a typical day .............................................................................
3.15.3.1. Late enrollment group ............................................................
3.15.3.2. No enrollment group ......................................................
3.15.4. Examination of children’s activities during a typical
day as a function of different variables in the no enrollment group
3.16. How influential were the factors contributing to children’s
enrollment in school in 2007-2008 academic year .............................
3.16.1. Late enrollment group ..........................................................
3.16.2. No enrollment group .............................................................
145
145
147
149
150
156
156
156
160
161
161
163
3.16.3. Value indexes of the reasons that were identified as factors
contributing to children not enrolling in school the previous year163
3.16.3.1 Late enrollment group ...................................................
163
3.16.3.2. No enrollment group ..................................................... 165
3.16.4. Regional issues and problems and not enrolling in
school on time ..................................................................................
167
3.17. Being informed of the financial support state provides for
enrolling girls in schools ......................................................................
167
3.17.1. Examination of being informed of the financial support
state provides for girls’ education as a function of
different variables ............................................................................
169
3.17.2. Examination of receiving the financial support state
provides for girls’ education .............................................................
172
3.17.3. Contributions of financial supports received from the
state to enrollment of children in schools .....................................
172
3.17.4. Factors that would contribute to families enrolling
their children in school in the near future ...............................
175
3.17.5. Not enrolling in school on time, transportation to
school and problems experienced in schools ........................
182
8
Table of Contens
4.CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................
4.1. Structural characteristics of families .....................................
4.2. Status of mothers and fathers .................................................
4.3. Number of children in the family and the preferences ............
4.4. Age for school enrollment and child’s development ..................
4.5. Health and disability status .................................................
4.6. School preparation activities of unenrolled children .................
4.7. Kindergarten / kindergarten attendance .....................................
4.8. School enrollment decision ...........................................................
4.9. School-bussing system and YIBO’s ...............................................
4.10. Regulation for primary education institutions: Article 15 ........
4.11. Traditional and religious factors ................................................
4.12. Effect of female-male children ................................................
4.13. The case of native language ......................................................
4.14. Being able to focus on late enrollment to school ....................
4.15. Work of actors and their roles ....................................................
4.16. Recommendations for future efforts and studies ....................
4.17. Effective communication practices .................................
4.18. Tasks for the relevant parties ..........................................
4.19. Recommendations generated from quantitative and
qualitative research findings .....................................................
183
183
184
185
185
187
187
187
187
188
188
188
188
189
189
189
190
190
190
191
9
10
Table of Contens
5. SHORT TERM STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON
WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................
APPENDIX – I DETAILED TABLES ...........................................................
APPENDIX – II QUESTIONNAIRES .........................................................
Questionnaire for quantitative data collection .......................................
Interview form for the semi-structured interviews .................................
Focus group meeting discussion guide .......................................................
APPENDIX – III REPORT OF THE “WORKSHOP ABOUT DEVELOPING
STRATEGIES TO ENSURE TIMELY ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN IN
PRIMARY SCHOOLS.” .....................................................................................
APPENDIX-IV. SAMPLE CARD USED DURING STRUCTURED
INTERVIEWS FOR THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ........................................
192
195
197
234
234
253
263
265
277
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of children aged 6-13 in 2007-2008 school year, ratio of unenrolled
children to total number of unenrolled children between the ages 6 through 13 .................... 26
Table 2. Gender distribution of children at the age of compulsory primary schools children
(6 – 13 years)................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3. School enrollment rates during the period of 8 years of compulsory education
in the academic years between 1997 and 2008 ......................................................................... 27
Table 4. Ratio of children who are not enrolled in school in the year 2001 to total
population of the provinces, March 2008 ..................................................................................... 37
Table 5. Population and sampling ................................................................................................. 38
Table 6. Using a proportional probability sampling technique to determine sample size ....... 39
Table 7. Number of clusters in provinces and districts ............................................................... 40
Table 8. Number of children included in sample for the quantitative study ............................. 41
Table 9. Number of people participating in focus group meetings disaggregated by
province ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Table 10. Number of people interviewed during semi-structured interviews disaggregated
by province ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 11. Research participant’s relationship to target child ..................................................... 43
Table 12. Participants of the focus groups disaggregated by the backgrounds of the
stakeholders .................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 13. Number of social stakeholders in semi-structured interviews .................................. 46
Table 14. Social stakeholder participants disaggregated by gender ......................................... 46
Table 15. Timeline for the current research ................................................................................. 48
Table 16. Descriptive statistics for the number of household members ................................... 51
Table 17. Household members shown based on their relationship to the target children....... 51
Table 18. Education and gender distribution of household members 6 years and older who
live in rural and urban areas in the late enrollment group .......................................................... 55
live in rural and urban areas in the unenrolled group .................................................................. 56
Table 20. Sex and education distribution in the late enrollment group for household
members 15 years and older living in the rural and urban areas ............................................... 58
Table 21. Distribution of the employment status of the household members ......................... 59
Table 22. Employment status of household members 15 years of age and older ................... 60
Table 23. Types of jobs held by household members 15 years of age and older ..................... 60
Table 24. Distribution of number of student household members ............................................ 62
Table 25. Number of children living in the household ................................................................. 62
Table 26. Whether students in the household attend regional boarding schools .................... 64
Table 27. Distribution of mothers based on their marital status ............................................... 67
11
Table 28. Distribution of the fathers’ ages ..........................................................................
68
Table 29. Distribution of the educational status of the fathers ....................................
68
Table 30. Types of jobs fathers hold ..................................................................
69
Table 31. Ways to close income-expenditure gap ................................................
72
Table 32. Ownership status of the home the families live in ..........................
73
Table 33. Average size of the home .........................................................................
73
Table 34. Descriptive statistics for the number of rooms in the residence the household
member live in .................................................................................................................
74
Table 35. Calculated age (based on participant reports) of the children whose ID date of
birth was 2001 ...........................................................................................................
79
Table 36. Distribution of those whose reports indicated a discrepancy between the
actual and the recorded age of the child by province they live in ...................
80
Table 37. Birth months as indicated in the ID record of children who were born in 2001 81
Table 38. Whether their health problems or consequences of their health problems had
lasting effects ..................................................................................................................
83
Table 39. How much does the health issue when the child was born influence life quality
of the child ..................................................................................................................
84
Table 40. Effects of the child’s health problem lasting since birth on child’s life .
85
Table 41. Health status of children when born based on the province ..............
86
Table 42. Effects of the child’s illness/special need on his/her life ...............
87
Table 43. Length of illness/disability .....................................................................
88
Table 44. Descriptive statistics for parental reports of children’s heights that did not
enroll in school on time by child sex ...........................................................
91
Table 45. Descriptive statistics for children’s weight ....................................
92
Table 46. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by province ...
94
Table 47. Mothers’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by level ofeducation ..
95
Table 48. Fathers’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by level of education ...
96
Table 49. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by having social
security/insurance ............................................................................................................
97
Table 50. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by living in urban
or rural areas ................................................................................................................................... 100
Table 51. How the information about the age for school enrollment is obtained .................... 101
Table 52. Whether the participants thought the child was enrolled in school on time
based on the province they lived in .........................................................................
102
Table 53. Participants’ educational levels and their views on whether they believed their
children had enrolled in school on time ................................................................
103
Table 54. Participant responses on whether they believe their children had enrolled in
school on time based on whether they live in urban or rural areas ........................
103
12
Table 55. Knowledge of article 15 of MONE regulations for primary schools and whether
they believed their children had enrolled in school on time .............................................
103
Table 56. Reasons for late enrollment .........................................................................
105
Table 57. The reasons for late enrollment of the child with illness or disability .............
106
Table 58. The reasons for late enrollment of the child based on how old the child was
at the time of school enrollment .........................................................................................
107
Table 59. The reasons for late school enrollment based on whether there is early childhood
education in the primary school the late school enrollment children are attending ......
109
Table 60. Results of KMO and Bartlett Tests ......................................................................
110
Table 61. Rotated factor matrix ..........................................................................................
111
Table 62. Factor labels ..........................................................................................................
112
Table 63. Descriptive statistics for Factor 1 based on provinces ......................................
113
Table 64. Post Hoc results for Factor 1 based on provinces ..............................................
113
Table 65. Descriptive statistics for Factor 2 based on provinces ......................................
114
114
Table 67. Descriptive statistics for Factor 3 for different provinces .................................
115
Table 68. Post Hoc results for Factor 3 for different provinces .........................................
115
Table 69. Descriptive statistics for Factor 4 for different provinces .................................
116
116
Table 71. Descriptive statistics for Factor 5 for different provinces ..................................
117
Table 72. Post Hoc results for Factor 5 based on provinces ...............................................
117
Table 73. Descriptive statistics for Factor 2 for fathers with different educational levels ...... 118
Table 74. Descriptive statistics for Factor 3 for fathers with different educational levels .......118
Table 75. Post Hoc results for Factor 2 for fathers with different educational levels ......... 119
Table 76. Descriptive statistics for Factor 4 for fathers with different educational levels .. 119
Table 77. Post Hoc results for Factor 4 for fathers with different educational levels .......
119
Table 78. Descriptive statistics for Factor 4 for fathers with different educational levels ... 120
Table 79. Post Hoc results for Factor 5 for fathers with different educational levels ......... 120
Table 80. The reasons for the children not enrolling in school ............................................ 121
Table 81. Reasons for not enrolling in school for those who had a disability or an illness ... 122
Table 82. Whether wanting to enroll the child in school in 2007 – 2008 academic year ..... 125
Table 83. Parental desire to enroll their children in primary school in 2007 – 2008
academic year based on residing in urban or rural areas ......................................................... 126
Table 84. Reasons for not enrolling their children in school despite attempts to enroll
children in schools in 2007 – 2008 academic year ................................................................ 128
Table 85. The child’s age during 2007 – 2008 academic year and the reasons for not
enrolling the children in school even though the parents had wanted to enroll their
children in primary schools ....................................................................................................... 129
13
Table 86. Reasons for unenrolled children to be not enrolled in schools in 2007-2008
academic year although the parents had wanted to enroll their children in school .......... 130
academic year although the parents had wanted to enroll their children in school by
living in rural or urban areas .................................................................................................... 131
Table 88. Attempts made to enroll the child in school up to this point ........................
132
Table 89. The reasons for enrolling the child in school in 2008 – 2009 academic year .... 133
Table 90. Reasons for enrolling children in school a year later .................................
134
Table 91. The reasons for enrolling their children in school 2008-2009 academic year
for those parents who wanted to enroll their children in school 2007-2008 academic year 135
Table 92. Sources of information about the school enrollment age .................................... 137
Table 93. Petitioning to postpone children’s school enrollment disaggregated by fathers’
educational levels ..................................................................................................................... 139
Table 94. Petitioning to postpone children’s school enrollment disaggregated by living
in urban and rural areas ........................................................................................................... 139
Table 95. Whether families received guidance about the school enrollment again the
2007-2008 academic year disaggregated by living in urban and rural areas ..................... 141
Table 96. Distribution of the people who informed families that the school enrollment
age was six ................................................................................................................................ 141
Table 97. The information given by the person who guided the families that they
needed to enroll their 6 year old children in school .............................................................. 142
Table 98. Whether the information about all 6 year old children being required
to be in school was given before or after the registration period of 2007 – 2008
academic year ............................................................................................................................ 143
Table 99. Activities late enrollment children engaged majority of the time within
a day during 2007 – 2008 academic year .............................................................................. 146
Table 100. Activities unenrollment children engaged majority of the time within
a day during 2007 – 2008 academic year .............................................................................. 147
Table 101. Relationship status of the individual who decided to enroll the child
in school and lives outside the home ...................................................................................... 148
Table 102. Educational activities taught at home to children in the late enrollment
group .......................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 103. Educational activities thought at home to children in the no enrollment group . 150
Table 104. Activities the children engaged in a typical day the previous year when
the child was out of school ...................................................................................................... 151
14
Table 105. Descriptive statistics for the frequency of activities children engage in during a
typical day in 2007-2008 academic year when they were out of school in the late
enrollment group ....................................................................................................................... 157
Table 106. Frequency of the activities the children engage in during a typical day in the
no enrollment group .......................................................................................................
158
Table 107. Descriptive statistics for the frequency of activities children engage in during
a typical day in 2007-2008 academic year when they were out of school in the no
enrollment group ....................................................................................................................... 159
Table 108. How influential were the factors contributing to children’s enrollment in
schools in 2007-2008 academic year in the late enrollment group ............................. 162
Table 109. How influential were the factors contributing to children’s enrollment in
schools in 2007-2008 academic year in the no enrollment group ....................................... 164
Table 110. Parental ratings of various factors that contributed to children’s late
enrollment .................................................................................................................................. 166
enrollment .................................................................................................................................. 168
Table 112. Examination of being informed of the financial support state provides
for girls’ education disaggregated by the province that they live in ................................... 169
for girls’ education disaggregated by the fathers’ occupation .............................................. 170
for girls’ education disaggregated by the total incomes of the families .............................. 171
Table 115. Examination of receiving financial support the state provides for girls’
education disaggregated by fathers’ occupation .................................................................... 173
Table 116. Type of aid received from the state ...................................................................... 174
Table 117. Factors that would contribute to parents enrolling their children in school 176
Table 118. Expected changes in the living conditions that would contribute to parents
enrolling their children in school on time ................................................................................ 177
Table 119. Expectations from the state to enroll children in school on time ...................... 178
Table 120. Factors influencing the decision to enroll children in school the
following year ............................................................................................................................ 180
Table 121. When would those parents who considering enrolling their children in school
in the future would enroll their children in school ................................................................. 181
15
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix Table 1. Net enrollment rates of males at single ages based on the
developmental degrees of the provinces ........................................................................
197
Appendix Table 2. Net enrollment rates of females at single ages based on the
developmental degrees of the provinces ..................................................................
197
Appendix Table 3. Sex distribution of participants in semi-structured interviews ......
198
Appendix Table 4. Distribution of participants in relation to the target child .......
198
Appendix Table 5. Age group distribution of participants in semi-structured interviews . 199
Appendix Table 6. Distribution of participants in semi-structured interviews based
on level of education ............................................................................................................... 199
on their occupations .................................................................................... 200
on how long they have worked at their current jobs ...............................................
200
Appendix Table 9. Distribution of household members based on their relationship
to the target child who did not participate in school on time ........................................... 201
Appendix Table 10. Age distribution of household members ........................................... 202
Appendix Table 11. Age – sex distribution based on living in urban and rural living areas . 203
Appendix Table 12. Age – sex distribution based on living in urban and rural living areas . 204
Appendix Table 13. Sex and education distribution of household members 15 years of
age and above living in urban and rural living areas .......................................................... 205
Appendix Table 14. Employment status of household members based on age groups
in late enrollment group .................................................................................................. 206
Appendix Table 15. Occupational distribution of household members15 years of age
and above ................................................................................................................................. 207
Appendix Table 16. Distribution of educational backgrounds of the mothers .................. 207
Appendix Table 17. Distribution of occupations mothers have .......................................... 208
Appendix Table 18. Distribution of occupations fathers have ............................................ 208
Appendix Table 19. Rental rates ........................................................................................... 209
Appendix Table 20. Distribution of the size of the residence ............................................. 209
Appendix Table 21. Reasons for the difference between the actual age and the age
indicated in state ID cards ..................................................................................................... 210
Appendix Table 22. Detailed description of the problems children experienced at birth .. 211
Appendix Table 23. Having an illness or a disability that would prevent the child
from enrolling in school on time .............................................................................................. 214
Appendix Table 24. Height of the child who was not enrolled in school on time based on
the actual year of birth ...............................................................................................
216
Appendix Table 25. Weight distribution of children ............................................................... 217
16
Appendix Table 26. Sources of information about the school enrollment age ................ 217
Appendix Table 27. Reasons for late enrollment ....................................... 218
Appendix Table 28. Reasons for late enrollment of the child who had a
disability/illness ..................................................................................................................... 219
Appendix Table 29. Reasons for no enrollment .................................................................. 220
Appendix Table 30. Whether they wanted to enroll the child in school in 2007-2008
academic year disaggregated by the province they lived in ............................................... 221
academic year disaggregated by fathers’ educational levels .......................................... 221
academic year disaggregated by total household income ................................................. 222
Appendix Table 33. Reasons for children to stay out of school despite wanting to enroll
the child in school during 2007-2008 academic year ......................................................... 223
Appendix Table 34. Attempts made to enroll the child in school previously
disaggregated by the province they live in .............................................................. 224
Appendix Table 35. Reasons to enroll the children in school after a year delay ............. 225
Appendix Table 36. Reasons for enrolling children in school during 2008-2009
academic year instead of enrolling children in school during 2007-2008 academic year .226
Appendix Table 37. Being informed of article 15 of primary schools regulations of
ministry of education disaggregated by the province they lived in .......................
228
Appendix Table 38. Whether participants applied to legally postpone child’s
enrollment in school disaggregated by the province they lived in .........................
229
Appendix Table 39. Whether participants were informed of the school enrollment
age during 2007-2008 academic year disaggregated by the province they lived in ...... 230
Appendix Table 40. People who were influential in the decision to not enroll children
in school during 2007-2008 academic year .............................................
231
Appendix Table 41. Distribution of the people who were most influential in the
decision to not enroll children in school during 2007-2008 academic year .........
232
Appendix Table 42. Whether they received state’s financial support for the
enrollment of their girls in schools disaggregated by the province they lived in ............. 233
Appendix Table 43. Whether they received state’s financial support for the enrollment
of their girls in schools disaggregated by total family income ........................................... 233
17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Net enrollment rates during the period of 8 years of compulsory education in
the academic years between 1997 and 2008 ................................................................... 28
Figure 2. School enrollment rates for single ages by child sex ....................................... 29
Figure 3. Sex ratios by academic years ............................................................................. 29
Figure 4. 2007 – 2008 school year net schooling rates for age 6 ................................... 32
Figure 5. Net schooling rates for boys based on developmental degree of the
provinces they live in .........................................................................................................
34
Figure 6. Net schooling rates for boys in the provinces that were included in the study ... 34
Figure 7. Net enrollment rates for girls at single ages disaggregated by the
developmental degrees of provinces ................................................................................. 35
Figure 8. Net enrollment rates for girls at single ages in the provinces included in the
study...................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9. Provinces included in the study ......................................................................... 37
Figure 10. Total number of people living in the household ............................................. 50
Figure 11. Gender distribution of the household members .............................................. 52
Figure 12. Educational levels of household members older than 15 years of age ........ 53
Figure 13. Age and gender distribution in the rural and urban living areas .................... 57
Figure 14. Age and gender distribution in the rural and urban living areas .................... 57
Figure 15. Whether the household members have social security ................................. 61
Figure 16. Reasons for children living outside of the household ..................................... 63
Figure 17. Whether the parent child is living together is a stepparent or a biological
parent ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 18. Distribution of the mothers’ ages based on 5 year age ranges ..................... 66
Figure 19. Average monthly expenditure of households .................................................. 71
Figure 20. Total household monthly income ..................................................................... 71
Figure 21. School enrollment status of children born in 2001 who were not enrolled
in school on time .................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 22. Sex distribution of children who were not enrolled school on time .............. 77
Figure 23. Age of the child based on the calculation of the participant ......................... 78
Figure 24. Consistency between the actual and the recorded date of birth for the
child who did not enroll in school on time ......................................................................... 78
Figure 25. Health of children when they were born .......................................................... 82
Figure 26. Whether the child had an illness or disability that would prevent the child
from enrolling in school on time ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 27. Figure of knowledge of children’s height and weight ...................................... 89
Figure 28. Height of children who did not enroll primary school on time ....................... 90
Figure 29. Knowledge the target children’s weight .......................................................... 91
Figure 30. Weight of children who did not enroll primary schools on time .................... 92
18
Figure 31. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment .............................. 93
Figure 32. Knowledge of MONE, Department of Primary Education Bylaws Article 15 and
Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment in late enrollment group
99
Figure 33. Participant responses about whether they thought their children were
enrolled in school on time or not ............................................................................................ 102
Figure 34. Whether there is early childhood education in the primary school the
late school enrollment children are attending ...............................................................
108
Figure 35. Parental desire to enroll their children in primary school in 2007 – 2008
academic year based on financial status of the legal guardian ........................................... 127
Figure 36. Whether parents had made attempts to enroll their children in school up
to this point ............................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 37. Knowledge of Article 15 within MONE Regulations for Primary School
Institutions Ministry of Education ........................................................................................... 136
Figure 38. Knowledge of Article 15 in Ministry of Education Primary Schools Regulations
based on living in rural or urban areas in late enrollment group ..................................
137
Figure 39. Whether parents petitioned to delay their child’s enrollment in schools
in late enrollment group ...................................................................................................
138
Figure 40. Someone giving information to families about the school enrollment age
being 6 in the academic year of 2007 – 2008 ....................................................................... 140
Figure 41. Those who decide to enroll the children in school in 2008-2009 academic
year ............................................................................................................................................ 144
Figure 42. Teaching educational activities at home during 2007 – 2008 academic year 148
Figure 43. Looking after siblings disaggregated by child sex .............................................. 152
Figure 44. Playing at home or in the streets disaggregated by child sex ........................... 152
Figure 45. Playing computer games disaggregated by child sex ......................................... 152
Figure 46. Helping with household chores disaggregated by child sex .............................. 152
Figure 47. Helping with the work in the field and in the garden disaggregated by child sex 153
Figure 48. Child receiving educational activities disaggregated by child sex .................... 153
Figure 49. Child helping with the care of a sick person at home disaggregated by
child sex ..................................................................................................................................... 153
Figure 50. Helping with the work in the place the families go to work as seasonal workers
disaggregated by child sex ...................................................................................................... 153
Figure 51. Child attending kindergarten disaggregated by child sex .................................. 154
Figure 52. Child engaging in painting and music activities disaggregated by child sex .... 154
Figure 53. Looking after siblings disaggregated by living in urban or rural areas ............. 155
Figure 54. Playing at home or in the streets disaggregated by living in urban or rural
areas .......................................................................................................................................... 155
Figure 55. Playing computer games disaggregated by living in urban or rural areas ........ 155
Figure 56. Helping with the work in the place the families go to work as seasonal workers
disaggregated by living in urban or rural areas ..................................................................... 155
19
Figure 57. Child attending kindergarten disaggregated by living in urban or rural areas ... 156
Figure 58. Child engaging in painting and music activities disaggregated by living in urban
or rural areas .............................................................................................................................. 156
Figure 59. Looking after siblings disaggregated by child sex ................................................ 160
Figure 60. Playing at home or in the streets disaggregated by child sex ............................. 160
Figure 61. Playing computer games disaggregated by child sex ........................................... 161
Figure 62. Helping with household chores disaggregated by child sex ................................ 161
Figure 63. Whether parents were informed of the financial support state provides for
enrolling girls in schools ............................................................................................................ 167
Figure 64. Being informed of textbooks being given free of charge disaggregated by living
in rural and urban areas ............................................................................................................. 171
Figure 65. Examination of being informed of the financial support state provides for girls’
education disaggregated by living in urban and rural areas .................................................. 171
Figure 66. Examination of receiving the financial support state provides for girls’
education .................................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 67. Whether these aids were influential in the child enrolling in school in
2007-2008 academic year ........................................................................................................ 174
Figure 68. Whether being informed of this aid contribute to beliefs about sending girls
in schools .......................................................................................................................
175
Figure 69. Whether the parents are interested in enrolling their children in school in the
unenrolled group ........................................................................................................................ 179
Figure 70. Being informed of free textbook distribution of the state for primary school
children ........................................................................................................................................ 181
20
ABBREVATIONS
EU EUROPEAN UNION (AB)
MCEF MOTHER CHILD EDUCATION FOUNDATION (AÇEV)
SPO
STATE PLANNING ORGANIZATION (DPT)
GEC
THE GIRLS’ EDUCATION CAMPAIGN (HKO)
MONE
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (MEB)
NGO
NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (STK)
TRT
TURKISH RADIO TELEVISION CORPORATION
TSI
TURKISH STATISTICAL INSTITUTE (TÜİK)
UNESCO
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
UNICEF
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND
RBS
REGIONAL BOARDING SCHOOLS (YİBO)
SSI
SOCIAL SECURITY INSTUTITION (SGK)
GRC
GUIDANCE AND RESEARCH CENTER (RAM)
21
SUMMARY
Late school enrollment is one of Turkey’s recently
recognized educational issues. As defined by the
Ministry of National Education (MONE) bylaws for
elementary schools in Turkey, the concept of late
school enrollment refers to the phenomenon of
children not enrolling in formal schooling when they
were at the legal age for school enrollment in the
beginning of the school year. The minimum legal
age for school enrollment is 72 months. Late school
enrollment is especially problematic in the Eastern
and South Eastern provinces of Turkey. There are many
factors responsible for late school enrollment.
With collaboration between MONE and UNICEF, this
project was carried out by the GENAR Research and
Consulting Company. The goals of this research were
to 1) explore the various aspects of the phenomenon
called “late school enrollment,” 2) describe the
profiles of families whose children are late entrants,
3) determine the causes of the problem and 4)
develop strategies to help increase the number of
children entering school on-time. Both qualitative
and quantitative research methods were used in this
research study. Ten provinces were included in the
study and were selected using e-school and Address
Registration System findings on school enrollment
for 6 year olds for the school year 2007-2008. These
provinces were Ağrı, Van, Muş, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa,
Şırnak, Hakkâri, Bitlis, Diyarbakır and Gümüşhane. A
total of 1.095 (N= 1.095) children were included in the
study. These children included those who were eligible
to attend school the previous year but attended school
a year later (Late enrollment, n= 959) and those
children who are still unenrolled despite being schooleligible for two years (No enrollment, n= 136). The
children’s households were visited and one person,
generally a mother, was interviewed. During these
interviews, a series of questions was asked to collect
data about household demographics, development
of the child who did not enter school on time, and
the reasons why these children were not in school.
For the qualitative part of the research, focus group
meetings and semi-structured interviews were used.
Focus group meetings were conducted with a total
of 42 people in the provinces of Ağrı, Van, Şanlıurfa,
Diyarbakır and Bitlis. There were between 6 to 10
people in each meeting. Meeting participants included
22
parents, teachers, school principals, mukhtars, local
governors, MONE directors, religious official, and
representatives from non-governmental organizations
and local media. Semi-structured interviews took
place in the provinces where focus group meetings
took place. Of the respondents, six were parents (five
fathers, one mother), and the rest were individuals in
the community.
Research findings indicated that children who
enteredschool late are generally from families with
low socio-economic status (SES). These families
were nuclear, with both a mother and father present,
and consisted of seven family members and five
children, on average. One consequence of having a
low SES level is that many parents try to close the gap
between income and expenditure by getting into debt
and obtaining assistance from different sources.
This situation is worsened by the limited education
of parents. Most mothers who delay school entry
of their children do not know how to read or write.
Although fathers have more education than mothers,
on average, the overall level of education is still very
low. Most mothers are housewives and do not have
jobs outside of the home that generate income.
Unemployment is widespread, and fathers with
jobs mostly work without a stable income. When
the household profiles of children who are in the
late group are compared to those who have not yet
entered school, the SES of the “unenrolled” group was
much lower than the “late enrollment” group.
When families were asked why their children were
not enrolled in school by the cut-off-age, the reasons
listed included: thinking the child’s age was too young,
thinking the child needed time to mature because
the child was perceived to be too weak and small
developmentally, financial difficulties and problems
accessing schools. Parents who late their children’s
school entrance one year were more likely to cite as a
reason their child was too young.
Among the no enrollment group, it was found that
financial problems were more prominent. However,
developmental concerns or illness-related issues were
expressed more frequently in this group. Thinking the
child was too young for school was also among the
reasons for not enrolling in school.
For both groups families had difficulties with the
calculation of their children’s age and lacked necessary
information about the age at which children start
school. Families were not informed about MONE
regulations.
Another important finding emerged when the
characteristics of the no enrollment and late
enrollment children were examined. There were
more male children in the late enrollment group and
more girls in the no enrollment group. Considering
that families have limited resources, it appears that
families prefer that male children attend school.
Moreover, when access to schools is difficult and
schools are at distant locations, girls are less likely to
attend school.
they are age-eligible, not sending girls to school,
language barriers, traditions, problems with schools
(e.g., access to schools, the school-busing program,
limited resources parental awareness, family structure
(e.g., too many children, level of parental education),
confusion about legal age for school enrollment, and
limited screening work of children at the legal age
for school enrollment all contribute to not enrolling
children at the legal age for school. Short term
plans should include identifying children who do not
enroll school on time, creating awareness among
families and providing financial support. Following
this, long term plans should be prepared taking into
consideration the needs of these provinces that have
educational problems, and providing solutions that
address the unique problems of the region.
Although it looks like families report making decisions
to send their children to school together, fathers have
more influential roles in the decision making process.
The biggest reason why families send their children
one year late to school is their belief that their children
are now at school age or their children physically
matured enough to attend school. In the no enrollment
group, it was reported that the most influential reason
why families send their children to school would be
improvements in their financial status.
How children spent their time while they were out of
school was examined. Children mainly spent their time
playing at home or outside in the neighborhood. These
children engaged in very few activities that would help
them prepare for school. Almost none of the children
who were kept out of school because they were too
young were enrolled in a preschool or kindergarten.
Not being able to speak Turkish, a unique problem for
the people living in the East and Southeast regions
is a factor influencing whether families can access
available resources. Language is another factor
negatively influencing whether children enroll in
schools when they are at the legal age.
This research investigated the factors associated
with school no enrollment when children are ageeligible. It was found that economical factors (e.g.,
families cannot pay for the school expenditures and
unemployment) social and cultural factors (e.g.,
limited parental education), not recognizing the
importance of enrolling children in school when
23
1. INTRODUCTION
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
Convention on the Rights of Child both indicate
that obtaining basic education is a right of every
human being. Article 26 of Human Rights Declaration
states that “Everyone has the right to education.
Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall
be compulsory.” This statement clearly presents the
responsibilities and the position of the countries that
signed the document (http://www.unicef.org/turkey/
pdf/_gi17.pdf). The UNICEF Convention On The Rights
Of The Child, Article 28 indicates that all children have
the right to education. It was also emphasized that,
particularly in the developing world, this right should
be guaranteed by the state and the state should
monitor and ensure regular school attendance (http://
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art28).
Parties recognize the right of the child to education,
and with a view to achieving this right progressively
and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in
particular: Make primary education compulsory and
available free to all; Take measures to encourage
regular attendance at schools and the reduction
of drop-out rates. Parties shall take all appropriate
measures to ensure that school discipline is
administered in a manner consistent with the
child’s human dignity and in conformity with the
present Convention. States Parties shall promote
and encourage international co-operation in matters
relating to education, in particular with a view to
contributing to the elimination of ignorance and
illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access
to scientific and technical knowledge and modern
teaching methods. In this regard, particular account
shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.
In addition to these documents, The World Education
Forum met in 2000 and passed certain agreements.
These decisions included concerted action to combat
gender inequalities in primary and secondary
education by year 2005 (UNESCO, 2000). Furthermore,
the decisions also included that by year 2015, in all
levels of education gender inequalities that put girls
at disadvantage shall be removed. By this year, again
the decisions included achieving gender equality and
24
providing free compulsory and good quality education
for all (Kavak, Ergen, 2007).
In addition to the international documents, in our
country, since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey,
education has been among the most emphasized
issues by the state. In the 1924 Constitution, the right
to basic education for children of compulsory school
age was clearly stated. For this reason, in the early
years of the republic, national literacy campaigns
were started and important steps have been taken
to increase school enrollment rates. The right to
have basic education was protected in all the various
constitutions passed since the foundation of the
republic by providing education as a constructional
right for children who are at the age of compulsory
schooling. Global principals and objectives of the
Convention on the Rights of Child for primary school
education were also adopted, and national laws were
passed to guarantee these as rights for children. As a
result, providing free compulsory education and equal
opportunities for all children were included both in the
constitutions (1961 and 1982 constitutions) and the
National Education Basic Law (1973) and the Primary
Education Act (1961).
When Turkey’s five-year development plans were
examined, even though expansion of primary school
education to all children has been on the agenda
starting in the 1970s, this goal has not been achieved.
For the 2005-2006 school year, the net enrollment
rate was 95.6%. However, 100% was targeted for the
2012-2013 school year, (Ninth Development Plan
2007-2013, SPO).
In addition, the Ministry of Education has also
implemented various comprehensive programs. The
main goal of the projects like National Education
Development Project, Basic Education Programs
and Projects (http://web.worldbank.org), the EU
Basic Education Support Program (http://www.meb.
gov.tr - 11.28.2007-) is to make primary education
available for the children who are the expected age
to start school. Children who are at the expected age
to start school are the children who are at the legal
age at the beginning of an academic year to enroll in
primary school. Of these programs, the Basic Education
Program and the EU Basic Education Support Program
are still going on, and the activities are underway to
reach this goal. Even though a lot of progress has been
made because of these projects, the goal to reach all
children at the age of compulsory education and to
provide them with educational opportunities has not
been reached (MONE, National Education Statistics,
Formal Education, 2007-2008). In addition to these
projects, because studies about gender inequalities
have shown that girls were at a disadvantage, MONE
and UNICEF have launched the girl’s education
campaign called “Haydi Kızlar Okula (HKO)” (“Hey
Girls, Let’s Go to School”) in 2003. With this campaign,
MONE aimed at reaching a 100% enrollment rate by
the end of 2007. To accomplish this goal by the end of
2007 involved bringing the girls aged 6-14 back into
the schooling system who were taken out of school
due to reasons such as absenteeism, not enrolling in
school, or dropping out of school. As a result, by the
end of 2006, in Turkey as a whole, there were 273.447
girls who were out of the school system between the
years 2003 and 2006. Of these girls, 222.800’ of them
(81%) were brought back to school system with the
girls’ education campaign. MONE reports that the work
is underway to bring the remaining girls back into the
school system (http://haydikizlarokula.meb.gov.tr-/
uygulama_sonuclari.php).
In Turkey there are two different terms used to explain
schooling rates. One of them is “gross enrollment rate”
and the other is “net enrollment.” Previously, primary
school enrollment rates were reported using “gross
enrollment” rates by the involved institutions (such
as, SPD, TSI and MONE). Especially since 2000, there
are debates concerning age groups as well as net
enrollment rates. Gross enrollment rates are based
on total number of children in primary schools. As a
result, in cities where there are a lot of repeat children
at various grade levels, these enrollment rates based
on gross enrollment have a tendency to appear much
higher. However, for participation in the educational
system to be represented more realistically, to be
able to calculate the number of children out of school,
and because it is based on the ratio and allows for
comparisons with similar situations, and because it
shows a clearer picture of school enrollment rates,
net enrollment rates are more important than gross
enrollment rates. Recently, in order to calculate
the number of children who are out of schools, and
those who did not start school at the year they were
expected to, net enrollment rates have been used. Net
enrollment rate is calculated by dividing the number
of students enrolled in primary education who are of
the official primary school age by the population for
the same age-group and then multiplying the results
by 100. (MONE, National Education Statistics, Formal
Education, 2007-2008,). According to the National
Education Formal Education Statistics for 2007 –
2008 published by the Ministry of National Education,
the net enrollment rate in primary education was
97.37% in 2007-2008 academic year (MONE, National
Education Statistics, Formal Education, 2007-2008).
When data from the address-based registration
system and e-school are examined, in March 2008
there were 410.000 children between the ages 6-13
who were unenrolled in schools. Of these children,
35% (approximately 145.000) were children who were
six (6) years of age (See Table 1). For children who
were at the age of seven, unenrollment rate was 9.5%
(38.000). Even though these numbers show children
of that given year who were unenrolled in school, there
were more 6 year old children, (1/3), represented
than 7 year old children, (1/10), within the group of
unenrolled children. This finding illustrates that 6 years
old children were more likely to experience late entry
into the school system.
25
Table 1. Number of children aged 6-13 in 2007-2008 school year, ratio of unenrolled
children to total number of unenrolled children between the ages 6 through 13
Age / year of birth
Number of
children
Number of
enrolled
children
Number of
unenrolled
children
Ratio of unenrolled children
to total number of unenrolled
children between the ages 6
through 13
6 years / 2001
1.259.663
1.114.898
144.765
35.4
7 years / 2000
1.287.273
1.248.630
38.643
9.5
8 years / 1999
1.284.752
1.257.863
26.889
6.6
9 years / 1998
1.286.715
1.261.259
25.456
6.2
10 years / 1997
1.282.727
1.254.762
27.965
6.8
11 years / 1996
1.234.804
1.201.871
32.933
8.1
12 years / 1995
1.227.844
1.183.195
44.649
10.9
13 years / 1994
1.262.633
1.195.137
67.496
16.5
Total
10.126.411
9.717.615
408.796
100
Source: Population statistics, State Ministry of Internal Affairs and Census Department Address Registration System (2008)
Data for unenrolled children were obtained from population statistics and MONE’s (March, 2008)
1.1.Problem
1.1.1. Population of children between
6-13 years of age in Turkey
According to Ministry of Education “e-school”
data foMarch 2008, in Turkey there are a total of
10.126.411 children between the ages of 6 – 13.
When the entire country of Turkey is considered,
the central district of Diyarbakır province has the
highest number of children within this age group with
162.222 children. The next district following this is
Gaziosmanpaşa which is the largest district of İstanbul
province with 155.015 children. Bingöl’s Yayladere
district has the lowest number of children within this
age group with 75 children.
Table 2. Gender distribution of children at the age of compulsory primary schools
children (6 – 13 years) (%)
Age/
Year of
birth
13
Years
1994
12
Years
1995
11
Years
1996
10
Years
1997
9 Years 8 Years 7 Years
1998
1999
2000
6 Years
2001
Total
Female
51,21
51,33
51,34
51,34
51,3
51,21
51,28
51,34
51,29
Male
48,79
48,67
48,66
48,66
48,7
48,79
48,72
48,66
48,71
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Population statistics were obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the General Directorate of Population and
Citizenship, Address Based Registration System (2008).
26
1.1.2. School enrollment rates
disaggregated by academic year (during the period of 8 years of compulsory education) and gender (Gross – Net)
When the children at the age of the 8 years of
compulsory education were examined based on sex,
there are no significant differences for different age
groups. It was found that girls as a whole constituted
49% of the students while boys constituted 51%.
Table 3 and Figure 1 show the enrollment rates of
children during the 8 year compulsory education period
for different academic years. Enrollment rates for 1997
and the years following that up to the year 2007 were
calculated based on 2000 population census data
and the latest population projections, and the school
enrollment rates for 2007 – 2008 academic year were
calculated based on Address Registration System
results and 2007 population census data. When the
school enrollment rates were examined, striking
gender differences in enrollment rates are noticeable.
Even though there is a notable increase in girls’ school
enrollment rates, the differences between males and
females are still present. At the same time, how the
2001 economic crisis influenced the enrollment can
easily be noticed in 2001-2002 academic year and
in the years following. In the 2000-2001 academic
year, the net enrollment rate was 95.28%, but in the
years following the net enrollment rates went down to
90.98% and 90.21% to respectively.
When the impact of the financial crisis lessened, an
increase in the net enrollment rate was observed. This
finding indicates that economical conditions could also
influence children’s on-time school enrollment. The
important point is that the economic crisis influenced
both girls and boys. Interestingly, even though boys’
enrollment rate was higher than girls, it appears that
the boys were influenced more by the economical
crisis. It is possible to explain this decline in school
enrollment rates by families depending on their
children, particularly boys, to contribute financially to
the family income. This contribution could either be by
children’s direct involvement in labor force to support
family income or by decreasing the resources families
need to allocate to education.
Table 3. School enrollment rates during the period of 8 years of compulsory education
in the academic years between 1997 and 2008 (%)
Total
Male
Female
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
1997-1998
89,51
84,74
96,26
90,25
82,43
78,97
1998-1999
94,31
89,26
100,72
94,48
87,60
83,79
1999-2000
97,52
93,54
103,31
98,41
91,47
88,45
2000-2001
100,93
95,28
106,32
99,58
95,31
90,79
2001-2002
99,45
92,40
104,19
96,20
94,51
88,45
2002-2003
96,49
90,98
100,89
94,49
91,91
87,34
2003-2004
96,30
90,21
100,31
93,41
92,14
86,89
2004-2005
95,74
95,74
99,48
99,48
91,85
91,85
2005-2006
95,59
89,77
98,83
92,29
92,24
87,16
2006-2007
96,34
90,13
99,21
92,25
93,37
87,93
2007-2008
104,54
97,37
106,41
98,53
102,57
96,14
Source: MONE, National Education Statistics Formal Education, 2007-2008
27
Figure 1. Net enrollment rates during the period of 8 years of compulsory education in the
academic years between 1997 and 2008
When the single age school enrollment rates in Turkey
were examined some interesting findings emerged.
First of all, these findings show that the net enrollment
rates for six-year-old children were lower than all
other age groups. Moreover, girls’ enrollment rates
are lower than boys for all the other age groups
except among six-year-olds. But for the first time at
six years of age, the enrollment rates for boys are
lower than the enrollment rates for girls. Still, one
important factor that needs to be paid attention to
is that even though girls’ enrollment rates are higher
than boys at six years of age, the enrollment rates are
considerably low for both girls (89%) and boys (88%).
In fact, when we look at the statistics for children
seven years of age, we find that the enrollment rates
become more similar to the enrollment rates for the
other age groups during primary education, with the
expected gender inequality presenting itself to be
effective for the remaining grade levels of primary
education. Results of all these findings show that
gender inequality shows itself at all age levels and
girls continue to benefit less from the educational
opportunities than do boys. However, both girls and
boys experience the problem of late school enrollment.
The fact that male children have slightly higher levels
of late enrollment shows that while girls experience
28
the problems of both never attending school and
late enrollment, boys face the problem of late school
enrollment more.
According to “e-school” March 2008 data, in Turkey
there were 411.805 children who were never enrolled
in schools. When the provinces were examined for
the number of children living in them who were
never enrolled in schools, İstanbul, Şanlıurfa, Van,
Diyarbakır and Ağrı provinces are among the top. Of
those unenrolled children, 10% live in İstanbul. Over
one third (35.3%) of the unenrolled children lived in
one of the provinces ranked in the top five for total
unenrollment. When the gender distribution of the
children at the primary school age is examined, it was
found that there were more girls in Turkey who never
enrolled in schools at every age except for age six.
Figure 2. School enrollment rates for single ages by child sex
Source: TSI Address-Based Registration System, e-school March 2008
Sex ratio1 refers to the number of girls relative to
the number of boys. As the ratio increases it means
that there are more equal opportunities for girls and
boys because the number of girls and boys would be
closer to each other. When Figure 3 is examined, it
can be seen that the educational reforms carried out
in 1997-1998 academic year allowed for increases in
the enrollment rates both for girls and boys. When the
“sex ratios” were examined, a tendency for an increase
in the ratios was observed, in other words, more equal
opportunities for boys and girls were provided.
Figure 3. Sex ratios by academic years
(During the period of 8 years of compulsory education)
1
Sex ratio means the relative ratio of the gross enrollment rate of girls to boys for a given academic year and a given age level. In
mathematical terms, the two different indicators (gross enrollment rate) divided by each other and then multiplied by 100 (Ministry of
Education, National Education Statistics Formal Education, 2007-2008).
29
1.2. Purpose and the significance of the study
Even though examining net and gross school
enrollment rates show problems with school
enrollment in Turkey, when we examine school
enrollment rates for each age group for primary
schools, we come an entirely different problem. This
problem indicates that overall, in Turkey, children
do not enter school at the time they are supposed
to enter school when they are 6 years old. This
problem is defined as no enrollment in school at the
determined age. Article 15 of Ministry of Education
Regulations for Primary Schools clearly states the
enrollment age for primary school. This article
states that “Children who are 72 months old by 31
of December of a given academic year are eligible to
enroll in elementary schools that academic year. Even
though a child is eligible to enroll in school based on
his or her chronological age, if a parent applies with
a written request to delay entry to school, a child’s
enrollment can be postponed for one year” (http://
mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/225_0.html). Focusing
on how many months old a child is might seem to
be a factor that can possibly help increase school
enrollment of children by the expected age. This is
because, by focusing on the number of months a child
has completed, a controversy between how a child’s
age is calculated can be avoided2. In other words,
any problems that can be experienced because of the
confusion about whether the actual age of the child
is calculated based on the number of years a child
has completed or whether we add one more year to
the child’s age for the age the child is going on can be
avoided. However, by allowing a parent guardian to
give a written request to postpone a child’s enrollment
in school for one year, this article provides flexibility to
families when they think their child is not physically
developed enough to attend school on-time. Even
though delaying a child’s school entry can be done
without consulting an expert, a written request of a
parent guardian is required. If this is not done, a child
is considered to be a child who did not enroll in the
expected year.
The Ministry of Education listed factors for enrolling
in school in the expected year as, child’s age,
child’s readiness based on physical development,
availability of schools, and parental decisions to
enroll children in school (MONE, 2006). Undoubtedly,
there is a great interaction among these factors.
When these factors are examined in more detail,
the families who make the final decision are under
the influence of many factors. These factors can be
listed as financial opportunities, health and nutrition
problems, family structure, religious beliefs and
values, traditions customs, traditional family structure,
perceptions about women’s role in society and the
effects social environment. Findings of numerous
international and national researches point to social,
economical, environmental and cultural factors such
as poverty, disability, gender inequality, migration,
low education rates, polygamy, problems with growth
and development, neglect, family priorities, scant
number of schools, limited number of teachers and
schools with insufficient conditions, accessibility of
schools, the value given to education or perceptions of
functionality of the schools, patriarchal families, role
of women in society as factors influencing children
not enrolling in school in the expected year (See,
Buchmann, 2000; Case, Paxson & Ableidinger, 2004;
Çivi & Koruk, 2005; Dilli, 2006; Fazlıoğlu & Dersan,
2004; Kavak & Ergen, 2007; Özbek & Miral, 2003; )
Not enrolling in school by 72 months of age as
determined by the Ministry of Education (MONE)
regulation comes across as a national problem in
Turkey. However, when looked closely, the problem
seems to be more prominent especially in the
provinces located in the geographical regions of
Eastern and Southern Anatolia and more so in their
rural living areas. When Figure 4 is examined closely,
the provinces where the problem reaches alarming
levels can be seen. Based on this picture, MONE and
UNICEF determined the provinces to be included in the
study as Ağrı, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Gümüşhane, Hakkâri,
Muş, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa, Şırnak and Van.
When the net enrollment rates for the provinces are
examined the lowest net enrollment rates were found
2 There is a confusion on how a child’s age is calculated. For example, a child who is 75 months old (6 years and 3 months) would be considered 6 by MONE and by some families but
others consider this child as 7.
30
to be in Bitlis, Gümüşhane, Hakkâri, Muş, Şırnak and
Van. These results are consistent with the results of
“The Socio-Economic Development Ranking Survey of
Provinces” conducted by SPO (2003). The provinces in
which data were collected were within the fourth and
the fifth degree provinces based on the classification
of the provinces depending on their developmental
levels. Osmaniye and Diyarbakır provinces were at
fourth degree, and the remaining provinces included in
the study were at the fifth degree.
When the net enrollment rates of six-year-old children
in all the provinces, shown in Figure 4, are examined
in detail, it is seen that the net enrollment rates for
children, and particularly for six-year-old children, are
considerably lower than average enrollment rates in
Turkey. The situation for the provinces included in the
study is summarized below.
In the province of Ağrı the lowest enrollment rate for
children at the primary school age is in the district
of Diyadin with 79.71% and the highest enrollment
rate is in Taşlıçay with 91.47%. The central district
is ranked second with 91.02%. As it was the case for
the enrollment rates in general in Ağrı, Diyadin is the
lowest ranked district with 57.36%, and Taşlıçay is
the highest ranked district with 83.62%. In the central
district, the net enrollment rate for six-year-old
children is 82.33%. For the province of Ağrı as a whole,
the net enrollment rate was 71.67%.
The lowest net enrollment rate for primary school age
children in the province of Bitlis was in Mutki district
with 81.75%, and the highest net enrollment rate of
98.20% was in Yenişehir district. The central district
is slightly above the provincial average. When the
net school enrollment rates for six-year-old children
were examined in the province of Bitlis, the lowest
net enrollment rate was found to be in Hizan with
69.12% and the highest net enrollment rate was found
in the central district of the province, 87.19%. Net
enrollment rate in Bitlis province was 81.86%.
In Diyarbakır province, lowest net enrollment rate for
primary school age children was in Çınar district with
81.66% and the highest net enrollment rates were in
Çermik and Kocaköy with 93.60%. The central province
of Diyarbakır consisted of three districts and was 3
points higher than the average with 93.40%. When the
net enrollment rates for six-year-olds were examined
in Diyarbakır, Çınar district was the lowest with
68.06%. Çüngüş had the highest net enrollment rates
for 6 year olds with 91.89%. An average net enrollment
rate for Diyarbakır was 81.81%.
The lowest net enrollment rate in Gümüşhane
province was in Şiran with 79.12%, and the highest
net enrollment rate was in Kürtün with 97.43%. The
central district was the second highest with 96.34%.
As it was the case in Gümüşhane in general, at six
years of age, Şiran had the lowest net enrollment rates
at 71.71%. The highest net enrollment rate was in
Kürtün with 93.5%. Average net enrollment rates in
Gümüşhane province was 82.30%.
The lowest net enrollment in Hakkâri province was
in the Şemdinli district with 75.92% and the highest
net enrollment rate was in the central district with
94.79%. As was the case for Hakkâri in general,
at six years of age, the net enrollment rate was
lowest in Şemdinli (78.25%). At six years of age, the
province with the highest net enrollment was Çukurca
(88.20%). In Hakkâri province, net enrollment rate for
six-year-olds was 81.45%.
In the province of Muş, the lowest net enrollment
rate for primary-school-aged children was in the
district of Bulanık with 83.05%, and the highest net
enrollment rate of 88.84% was in the central district.
Net enrollment rate in the province of Muş for six-yearolds was lowest in Bulanık (67.91%) and highest in the
central district (77.89%). The average net enrollment
rate was 74.50%.
In Osmaniye, the lowest net primary school enrollment
rate of children was in Düziçi district with 93.81%,
and the highest net enrollment rate was in Bahçe with
97.46% with 95.19%, the central district is ranked
slightly below the provincial average. Net enrollment
rate for six-year-olds in the province of Osmaniye is
lowest in the district Kadirli with 71.53%, and the
highest in the district of Bahçe with 90.02%. The
average net enrollment rate in Osmaniye was 77.54%.
31
Figure 4. 2007 – 2008 school year net schooling rates for age 6
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
NET ENROLLMENT
AVERAGE
32
In Şanlıurfa, the lowest net enrollment rate of children
was in the district of Siverek with 85.35%, and the
highest net enrollment rate was in Birecik district
with 95.11%. With a rate of 91.15%, the central
district ranked just above the provincial average.
Net enrollment rates for six-year-olds were highest
in Birecik (85.32%) and lowest in Siverek (68.19%).
Average net enrollment rate in Şanlıurfa for six-yearolds was 77.75%.
In Şırnak, the lowest net enrollment rate was in
Beytüşşebap (88.19 %). The highest net enrollment
rate was in the central district with 92.02 %. Net
enrollment rate for six-year-old children was highest in
Cizre with 81.97%, and the lowest in İdil with 79.11%.
In Şırnak, the average rate of net enrollment for sixyear-olds was 80.73%.
In Van, Ozalp district had the lowest net enrollment
rate at 78.42% while Edremit had the highest net
enrollment rate of 94.32%. The central district was
ranked third 91.24%. Net enrollment rate for six-yearolds was the highest in Gevaş district (89.46%), and
lowest in Çaldıran at 61.12%. Net enrollment ratio of
children aged six in the province of Van was 74.05%.
Because the goal of this research was to understand
the magnitude of the issue of not enrolling in schools
when the children were at the legally determined age
and identifying factors that could lead to the solution
of the problem, MONE identified the children that were
affected by the problem in the provinces included in
the study. Of these identified households with children
who had not enrolled in primary schools the previous
years, 1.095 of them were included in the study. In the
randomly selected sample, there were 959 children
who had not enrolled in school in the year they
completed 72 months of age, but they had enrolled
in primary schools a year late, the following year. The
remaining 136 children had become legally eligible to
enter school like the children in the late enrollment
group, but they had been unenrolled for two years in a
row. They were identified as unenrolled children.
In the current research unenrolled children and
children who had late enrollment were examined
separately. It was assumed that by examining
these two groups separately, where these two
groups were similar and where they were different
could be understood more clearly. Another goal for
separating these two groups was to examine whether
the unenrolled children would have any potential
to eventually enroll in primary schools or whether
they would continue to stay unenrolled. In order
to accomplish these objectives and to be able to
better generalize the findings three different labels
were used: late enrollment, no enrollment and no
enrollment at the determined age. No enrollment
in school at the determined age includes both the
unenrolled and the late enrollment children.
This research was designed because children not
enrolling in primary schools by the determined legal
age are an understudied phenomenon in Turkey.
Thus, designed as a descriptive research, the goal
was to explore the magnitude of the problem. It was
also expected that by using both the address based
registration system and e-school data, the findings of
this research would allow for a clear understanding
of the reasons for children not enrolling in school
on time. Following identification of the reasons
for not enrolling in school by the determined age,
strategies could be developed to ensure timely school
enrollment.
As a result, in a country where widespread efforts are
made to make compulsory education 9 years long
with the inclusion of kindergarten (60 – 72 months
old children) into compulsory education and with the
use of e-school system data for every child who is
registered with the state, obtaining findings of such
an extensive research is definitely a necessity in
Turkey. Despite numerous efforts made to improve the
educational situation of the country, overall in Turkey
and particularly in rural areas and in provinces of the
Eastern and South Eastern regions of Turkey, problems
with access to and quality of education and not having
equal educational opportunities for all continue to
exist. In addition to this, not reaching the target
enrollment rates.
In the entire country and having teacher-related
problems are some of the other problems experienced
in Turkey. Even though children not enrolling in primary
school on time are a function and a part of the existing
educational problems, this research has allowed for
the unique conditions and factors associated with this
particular problem, hence developing new strategies
became possible. As a result, providing solutions
33
that are unique in addressing the problems of the
risk group can be made possible and conditions that
allow for the timely enrollment of children can be
prepared. Without a doubt, ensuring timely enrollment
of children will positively impact net enrollment rates
and will help the efforts to improve the educational
situation in Turkey.
1.3. Net school enrollment rates
of the provinces based on socio- economic development index
The State Planning Organization determined the
developmental degrees of the provinces based on
First Degree
Second Degree
Third Degree
İstanbul,
Ankara,
İzmir,
Kocaeli,
Bursa
Konya, Karabük,
Eskişehir, Tekirdağ,
Isparta, Hatay,
Adana, Yalova, Uşak, Burdur,
Antalya, Kırklareli,
Samsun, Kırıkkale,
Denizli, Muğla, Bolu,
Nevşehir, Karaman,
Balıkesir, Edirne, Mer- Elazığ, Rize, Trabzon,
sin, Bilecik, Kayseri,
Amasya, Kütahya,
Gaziantep, Zonguldak, Malatya, Kırşehir,
Aydın, Sakarya, Çanak- Artvin, Afyon, Düzce,
kale, Manisa
Çorum
When the list above is examined, it is observed that the
provinces included in the study are either within the
fourth or fifth degree classifications. While Osmaniye
34
findings from “The Socio-Economic Development
Ranking Survey of Provinces.” This survey included
58 variables in order to examine the social and
economical indicators of 81 provinces based on
administrative structure in December 2003. Among the
variables included were demographic, employment,
education, health, industry, agriculture, construction,
financial, infrastructure and other welfare indicators
that were examined under 10 main categories. Based
on further evaluation of the results of the survey,
the country was classified in 5 separate groups with
varying levels of development. The developmental
degrees of the provinces are listed below:
Fourth Degree
Fifth Degree
Osmaniye,
Kahramanmaraş, Niğde,
Giresun, Kastamonu,
Tunceli, Sivas,
Kilis, Bartın, Aksaray,
Sinop, Erzincan,
Çankırı, Erzurum,
Tokat, Ordu, Diyarbakır,
Yozgat, Adıyaman
Bayburt, Kars,
Şanlıurfa, Iğdır,
Batman,
Gümüşhane, Mardin,
Siirt, Ardahan,
Van, Bingöl,
Hakkâri, Şırnak,
Bitlis, Ağrı, Muş
and Diyarbakır provinces are fourth degree, the
remaining provinces are fifth degree.
Figure 5. Net schooling rates for boys based on
developmental degree of the provinces they live in
Figure 6. Net schooling rates for boys in the provinces
that were included in the study
The net enrollment rates of boys and girls in the
10 provinces included in the study were examined
as a function of the degree of development of the
provinces determined based on SPO’s research
conducted in 2003 to identify the level of social and
economical development of the provinces. Striking
results were obtained from these examinations
(See Appendix Table 1 – 2). It was found that in
the 10 provinces the data were collected, the net
enrollment rates of the males were higher than the
net enrollment rates of the girls at single ages for the
ages between 6 – 13.
When the net enrollment rates of the male children
were examined based on the degrees of development
of the provinces included in the study, even though the
net enrollment rates varied based on the age of the
child, the net enrollment rates of the children in the
provinces of the sample were lower than the country
average for all ages. The net enrollment rates of these
provinces were similar to the net enrollment rates of
the fifth degree provinces. In some of the provinces
included in the study, the net enrollment rates of male
children at age 6 (born in 2001) were even lower than
the levels of the fifth degree provinces. Overall in the
country, the highest levels for net enrollment of male
children at age 6 (born in 2001) were highest in the
first degree provinces. This was followed by 3rd, 2nd,
4th and 5th degree provinces respectively (See Figure
5 - 6 and Appendix Table 1)
When figure 5 and 6 were examined, it was found
that the male children’s access to education was
very different in the provinces that were within the
fifth degree of development than all other provinces.
According to TSI’s Child Labor research for children
6-14 years of age, 41.7% of these children were
currently participating in the labor force (TSI, Child
labor research, 2006). Another research conducted
by TSI showed that being teased by teachers and/
or classmates was one of the main reasons for poor
or working children to drop out of school (Bulutay,
1999). When “e-school” 2008 data were examined,
the child/teacher ratio in the 10 provinces included in
the study and the provinces within the fifth degree of
development was among the highest compared to all
the other provinces in the country.
Figure 7. Net enrollment rates for girls at single ages
disaggregated by the developmental degrees of provinces
Figure 8. Net enrollment rates for girls at single ages in
the provinces included in the study
Using the same method used to analyze the data
for male students, female children’s enrollment
rates were examined as a function of the degrees
of development of the provinces. It was found that
the rates varied in the provinces. In the 10 provinces
included in the study, net enrollment rates of female
children were lower than the national averages for
all age groups and similar to 5th degree development
provinces. In the provinces included in the study,
the enrollment rates of six-year-old female children
(born in 2001) was even lower than the provinces
that were within the fifth degree of development.
The highest enrollment rates were found within the
provinces that were identified as first degree (92.8%).
This was followed by 3rd degree (91.8%), 2nd degree
(90.5%), 4th degree (86.4%) and 5th degree (78.7%)
development provinces. Net enrollment rates of
male and female children were similar when the
enrollment rates were examined as a function of the
developmental degrees of the provinces (See Appendix
Table 2).
When Figure 7 was examined, it was found that
the access female children have for education was
similar among the provinces that had 1st, 2nd and
3rd degree development. This, however, was different
for 4th and 5th degree development provinces. The
net enrollment rates for the provinces included in
the study were similar to 5th degree development
provinces. In addition, the net enrollment rates for sixyear-old females were even lower than the 5th degree
provinces. Possible reasons for this could be the
beliefs families have about not finding girls’ education
profitable, the girls’ contribution to household labor,
and looking after younger siblings and working on the
farm.
35
2. METHODOLOGY
For this project, both quantitative and qualitative
methods were used as complementary methods. The
quantitative research included face-to-face interviews
conducted with parents in participating cities using
questionnaires prepared for the research. Quantitative
research methods included asking a series of
questions prepared beforehand to a set number of
people (Nakip, 2005). The purpose for using this
method was to reach a large number of respondents
and allow for possible generalizations. Qualitative
research methods were used to get responses from
the other stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews,
focus groups, and document analyses were all
qualitative research methods and they were used
to understand more realistic perceptions of the
people in their natural settings as they experience
the events to reach a more holistic understanding
of the phenomena studied. Before the data were
collected for the research, relevant past research
studies were examined and document analyses
were implemented. By implementing a document
analysis, both national and international sources were
examined and the state of unenrolled and enrolled
students explored. In addition, the data obtained from
document analyses were used to form the research
instruments. Lastly, the databases that were obtained
from numerous institutions were analyzed in order to
make inferences about the possible reasons for late
enrollment.
2.1. Research population
In this research 10 provinces that most experienced
the problem of children not enrolling in schools by the
determined age were studied. These provinces were
identified by the Ministry of Education and UNICEF
using the address-based registration system and
e-school data which identified the net enrollment
rates for six-year-old children in all the provinces
of Turkey. The population for the study were the
provinces of Ağrı, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Gümüşhane,
Hakkâri, Muş, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa, Şırnak and
Van as shown in the map on Figure 9. Teachers,
administrators, legal guardians, primary school
inspectors and stakeholders (community leaders,
36
local administrators, NGOs, etc.) were included in the
study.
2.2. Research sample
2.2.1. Sample for quantitative research
When the total number of children who were born in
2001 and those who were enrolled in school in the
year 2008 were examined, striking situations these
provinces have in terms of their school enrollment
rates can be seen. Table 4 shows that 185.668
children were born in 2001. Of these children, 40.169
of them (21.63%) were still unenrolled at the time of
the study. When the ratio of children who were born
in 2001 and not enrolled in schools to total number
of children who were born in 2001 calculated, it
was found that 22.38% of the girls, and 20.93% of
the boys, and the 21.63% of all the children of this
age group were out of school at that time. In the
provinces that were in the research population, girls
seemed to be at a slight advantage over boys at age
six, except in Osmaniye and Gümüşhane (See Table 4).
In determining the sample size for this research,
confidence level of 95%, the tolerance rate of 3%,
were used. As a result, the numbers of mass units
(number of households) were identified to be 1080.
When the sample sizes for each of the provinces were
identified based on the unenrolled or late enrolled
children in these provinces were determined, number
of mass units for Gümüşhane became 10. In order
to conduct statistical analyses that would compare
the results for different provinces, this number was
increased to 15 mass units. Using the same method,
when the sample was divided into 15 sample units,
73 clusters were identified. In the application of
this, sample distribution and application was done
based on the number of clusters obtained. As a
result of this, the number of mass units increased
to 1.095. Therefore, 73 clusters were obtained from
40169/15=2678.
First of all, because the entire 10 provinces were
targets of the study, the clusters that were obtained
were proportionately selected for the children who had
late enrollment and unenrolled children (See Table 5).
Figure 9. Provinces included in the study
Table 4. Ratio of children who were not enrolled in school in the year 2001 to total
population of the provinces, March 2008
Provinces
6 year old children who were
not enrolled in school in
2007-2008 school year (a)
Total number of 6
years of children’s
population (b)
(a / b) x 100 = %
Ağrı
Male
2.274
Female
2.315
Total
4.589
Male
8.439
Female
8.176
Total
16.615
M
26,95
F
28,31
T
27,62
Van
3.851
3.774
7.625
15.419 14.541
29.960
24,98
25,95
25,45
Muş
1.449
1.581
3.030
6.137
6.036
12.173
23,61
26,19
24,89
Osmaniye
1.134
942
2.076
4.791
4.531
9.322
23,67
20,79
22,27
Şanlıurfa
4.872
4.932
9.804
23.867 22.371
46.238
20,41
22,05
21,20
Şırnak
1.223
1.353
2.576
6.808
6.653
13.461
17,96
20,34
19,14
Hakkâri
620
675
1.295
3.573
3.403
6.976
17,35
19,84
18,56
Bitlis
818
900
1.718
4.854
4.562
9.416
16,85
19,73
18,25
3.504
3.550
7.054
20.323 18.912
39.235
17,24
18,77
17,98
221
181
402
1.168
2.272
18,92
16,39
17,69
19.966
20.203
40.169
2.0,93
22,38
21,63
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Total
1.104
95.379 90.289 185.668
Source: : Population Statistics The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Address Registration System of the General Directorate of
Population and Citizenship. The data for children who never enrolled in schools were obtained from Population statistics
and MONE’s e-school database. (March, 2005)
37
Table 5. Population and sampling
Provinces
Male
Female
Total
Sampling
Ağrı
Van
2.274
3.851
2.315
3.774
4.589
7.625
123
205
Muş
1.449
1.581
3.030
81
202
5
15*5 = 75
Osmaniye
1.134
942
2.076
56
138
4
15*4 = 60
Şanlıurfa
4.872
4.932
9.804
264
654
18
15*18 = 270
Şırnak
1.223
1.353
2.576
69
172
5
15*5 = 75
Hakkâri
620
675
1.295
35
86
2
15*2 = 30
Bitlis
818
900
1.718
46
115
3
15*3 = 45
3.504
3.550
7.054
190
470
13
15*13 = 195
221
181
402
11
27
1
15*1 = 15
40.169
1.080
2.678
73
1.095
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Total
19.966 20.203
In the first stage of sample selection, the
developmental degrees of the districts, the selection
of districts to collect data and distribution of clusters.
Using the developmental index for the districts
prepared by SPD, the districts for each province were
ranked (SPD, 2004). Because the number of districts
were too many, only some of the districts were
included in the selection. The number of districts and
the clusters that were going to be created for each of
the provinces included in the study were decided upon
based on the sizes of the provinces (See Table 7).
population sizes (number of children who are out of
school) and number of clusters are listed (columns 2,
3 and 4).
Stratified sampling that determined the size of the
sample in Şırnak proportional to that of the population
is shown in Table 6. It was determined that there were
going to be five clusters for Şırnak province (75 mass
units). According to the report of the SPD, the districts
shown in Table 6 are listed in order of development.
Then, the following steps were taken.
4. Using the “RAND ()” function in MS Excel program a
random number is generated to become the starting
point between 1 and k. The number produced was 5.
After this number every k (kth) cluster is the cluster
that is included in the sample. As a result, the five
identified clusters were 5, 39, 73, 107 and 141.
Stages of proportional probability cluster sampling are
as follows;
1. The developmental degrees of all the districts, their
38
Number Number
of
of
Size of Sampling
Clusters
Clusters Selected
306
8
15*8 = 120
508
14
15*14 = 210
2. The cumulative total number of clusters is
calculated (column 5). (The last number in this column
refers to the total number of clusters in the target area
for this research).
3. A constant k value was determined using a formula,
k=N/n=171/5=34 to determine the clusters used for
the research.
As it can be found in table 6, the districts that had
these numbers included the central district, Silopi (two
clusters), Cizre and İdil. Second stage: sampling from
the districts that were selected to be in the research
sample were carried out using “simple random
sampling.” The sample selection method used in
this research was a “stratified two-stage cluster
sampling.” In this research, the provinces made
up the strata. From each province, using cluster
sampling, clusters of 15 people were selected in
the first stage from each of the provinces included
in the research. In the second stage of sample
selection, simple random sampling was used to
determine the sample.
The lack of urban-rural distinction in
the database, as well as not having any
information about sex distribution, these
two criteria could not be included in the
sample selection. On the other hand,
because the participants in each district
were randomly selected, this problem was
eliminated.
Table 6. Using a proportional probability sampling technique
to determine sample size
Location
Level of
development
Number of
children
Total
Cumulative
not
number of total of
attending clusters
clusters
school
412
412/15=27
27
693
46
73
Range of
change
Number
of
clusters
selected
Number
of
People
1-27
28-73
1
2
15
30
Center
Silopi
3
3
Cizre
3
649
43
116
74-116
1
15
İdil
6
459
31
14
117-147
1
15
Uludere
6
202
14
161
148-161
Beytüşşebap
6
112
7
168
162-168
Güçlükonak
6
49
3
171
169-171
2.576
171
5
75
Total
* Selected settlements were central district, Silopi, Cizre and İdil.
The addresses of the mass units were found in
the database. However, using this method, the
actual addresses and the listed addresses did
not always match.
When this happened, and when there were
no door numbers, principals of the schools
were approached and identified people
for the research were contacted and the
interviews carried out.
39
Table 7. Number of clusters in provinces and districts
Number of
Clusters
Number of
Clusters
AĞRI
Doğubeyazıt
8
3
HAKKARİ
Merkez
2
1
Eleşkirt
1
Yüksekova
1
Merkez
1
MUŞ
5
Patnos
3
Bulanık
2
BİTLİS
3
Malazgirt
1
Adilcevaz
1
Merkez
2
Güroymak
1
OSMANİYE
4
Merkez
1
Düziçi
1
DİYARBAKIR
13
Kadirli
1
Bağlar
4
Merkez
2
Bismil
1
ŞANLIURFA
18
Çermik
1
Akçakale
1
Çınar
2
Birecik
1
Dicle
1
Harran
1
Eğil
1
Merkez
8
Sur
2
Siverek
4
Yenişehir
1
Suruç
1
GÜMÜŞHANE
1
Viranşehir
2
Merkez
1
To make predictions for the population, mass total, average and ratio were calculated. Formulas used in these,
and confidence interval calculations can be found below. Here was set. Indices used in these formulas are:
40
€
: Layers,
M : Total number of clusters,
: Total number of clusters in a province,
: Number of clusters in the sample,
: Number of sample units in clusters,
: Characteristic of a unit,
: One characteristic being present in one unit.
Accordingly, the following formulas were used:
n hi
∑a
phi =
i
i=1
n hi
mh
€
ph =
∑p
i=1
mh
€
sh2 =
hi
mh
∑( p
i=1
hi
− ph ) 2
mh −1
L
pˆ = ∑W h ph
€
’dir.
€
For mass ratio
h =1
L
)
M h − mh sh2
V ( p) = ∑W h (
)
Mh
mh
h =1
)
sh( p) = V ( pˆ )
€
€
Table 8. Number of children included in sample for the quantitative study
Late enrollment
No Enrollment
Not Enrolled When Eligible (Total)
Frequency
%
959
136
88,0
12,0
1.095
100
41
Because the population sizes of the ten provinces
included in the study were small, when these
provinces were divided as rural and urban based on
TSI’s definitions of rural and urban, the population
sizes of the rural areas became larger compared
to the urban areas. In order to examine the data
in a more Because the population sizes of the ten
provinces included in the study were small, when
these provinces were divided as rural and urban based
on TSI’s definitions of rural and urban, the population
sizes of the rural areas became larger compared to the
urban areas. In order to examine the data in a more
meaningful manner, another definition was developed
to differentiate urban and rural areas. The district
centers of the provinces were identified as urban living
areas as they were much closer to schools, hospitals,
and other state institutions. Similarly, villages, towns
and other smaller living areas were identified as rural
areas because their access to schools, hospitals and
other state institutions were more difficult accordingly,
42.3% of the living areas that were included in the
study were identified as rural living areas and 57.7% of
the living areas were identified as urban living areas.
2.2.2. Sample for qualitative research
2.2.2.1. Focus group meetings
Five provinces, Bitlis, Ağrı, Diyarbakır, Van and
Şanlıurfa, were selected for the focus group meetings
to be held. While determining which provinces
were going to be selected for the focus groups, the
developmental index of the province was used. The
provinces that were included in the study were ranked
based on the net enrollment levels for six-year-old
children. Once the provinces were ranked the highest
two and lowest two provinces were selected, while
another province from the middle of the ranking was
selected to determine the provinces to be included
in the focus group meetings. As a result, provinces
that were facing the problem at varying degrees
were included in the study to allow for comparisons
to be made. On the other hand, even though the net
enrollment levels for Gümüşhane were somewhat
lower than Diyarbakır, because it has a smaller
population size and as a result of this it has fewer
children who were not enrolled in school at the
determined age, instead of Gümüşhane, Diyarbakır
was selected.
Initially, in the sampling plan, focus group meetings
were planned to include 8-12 people per province.
For all the focus group meetings, members of various
stakeholders, listed in Table 9, and their replacements
were invited. Many more appointments than the
originally planned number of appointments were made
for the focus group meetings. Even though at the day
of the focus group meetings some people cancelled
their appointments, the total number of participants
that were targeted was reached. As a result, Ağrı and
Van had the highest number of participants with 10
people each, and Şanlıurfa had the fewest number of
participants with 6 people. In the end, five different
focus group meetings in five different locations were
conducted ( See Table9).
Table 9. Number of people participating in focus group meetings
disaggregated by province
42
Number of Focus Group
meetings
Targeted number of
people
Actual Number of
Participants
Ağrı
Van
1
1
8-12
8-12
10
10
Şanlıurfa
1
8-12
6
Diyarbakır
1
8-12
9
Bitlis
1
8-12
7
Total
5
40-60
42
2.2.2.2 Semi-structured interviews
that are of similar backgrounds. There were 85 semistructured interviews, with 78 males and 7 females
(See Appendix Table 3). are of similar backgrounds.
There were 85 semi-structured interviews, with 78
males and 7 females (See Appendix Table 3).
In the provinces, Bitlis, Ağrı, Diyarbakır, Van and
Şanlıurfa, where focus group meetings were held,
interviews were held with the social stakeholders
Table 10. Number of people interviewed during semi-structured interviews
disaggregated by province
Targeted number of
interviews
Actual Number of
interviews
Ağrı
Bitlis
14
14
23
14
Diyarbakır
14
18
Şanlıurfa
14
13
Van
14
17
Total
70
85
2.3. Data collection techniques
2.3.1. Data from quantitative research
Data for this research were collected in the homes of
these children via face-to-face interviews that were
conducted with one of the legal guardians by data
collectors who were trained for this research. The
data collector who carried out the interviews read
each question and asked the parents to give their
answers using a scale that is shown on a card (See
Appendix - IV). Most of the interviews were conducted
with mothers (n=729) because mothers were the
ones at home at the time of data collection during
the day. A significant number of remaining interviews
were conducted with fathers (n=329). When there was
neither a mother nor father present or when neither
of them could speak Turkish, another family member
was interviewed. Only 3.6% of the interviews did not
include either a mother or father. Table 11 lists the
people interviewed. Additional information can be
found in Appendix Table 4.
As can be seen in Table 11, because the majority of the
participants are parents, descriptive statistics about
the participants were provided and examined in the
section about the household members.
Table 11. Research participant’s relationship to target child
(More detailed information can be found in Appendix Table 4)
Late enrollment
Noenrollment
enrollment
No
Not enrolling on time
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Mother
Father
630
297
65,8
31,0
99
32
72,8
23,5
729
329
66,6
30,0
Other
32
3,2
5
3,7
37
3,6
Total
959
100
136
100
1.095
100
43
2.3.2. Quantitative research measurement
Questionnaires used for the quantitative research
included demographic information (household
members’ levels of education, income and
expenditures, employment status, etc.), information
about household members and information about
target children (health, development, etc.) and
questions about the age for school enrollment. In
addition to the questions asked to both groups, there
were two separate sections for the late enrollment
and no enrollment groups. The questions for the
late enrollment group included questions about why
children were not enrolled in school the previous year
even though they were at the legal age for school
enrollment and the reasons for enrolling children in
school the following year. Similarly, the parents in the
unenrolled children’s group were asked to report on
why they did not send their children to school on time
and what sorts of changes would be needed for them
to enroll their children in school. In addition, both
groups were asked to report on the types of activities
their children engaged in at home while they were
not in school and what type of attempts they made
to enroll their children in schools. When open ended
questions were asked, the participant responses were
coded to quantify their answers. Other questions used
a nominal, yes-no response format, while others used
a Likert scale (See Appendix – II for a copy of the
questionnaire).
2.3.3. Sampling techniques for qualitative research
Semi-structured interviews and focus group meetings
were used in the qualitative section of this research
study. In this section, participants’ perceptions were
targeted and the goal was to capture qualitatively
the perceptions and events as they were experienced
in their natural settings in a more comprehensive
and realistic way. Prior to interviews and focus group
meetings, database and document analyses were
conducted. Document analysis included examining the
international and Turkish literature about late school
enrollment or related subjects both in the world and
in Turkey. Database analysis included examination
of “National Education Statistics, Formal Education
44
2007-2008,” 2007 born children’s population statistics
of TSI’s Address Based Registration System, 2008
e-school statistics (number of enrolled children by
sex for single ages for all the provinces and districts
of Turkey), the socio-economic development ranking
survey of districts (2004) and provincial and regional
socio-economical developmental index reranking
survey (2003) in order to examine the current state in
the country regarding late school enrollment.
2.3.3.1 Focus groups
A qualified and trained professional (social
psychologist or a sociologist) served as a moderator,
and in focus group meetings the purpose was to
engage participants in a discussion to examine the
problem of late school enrollment and its causes.
These meetings were designed to be informal and
took place either in meeting rooms of schools or
directorates of national education and took an average
of 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Each person was given a
chance to speak and express his or her opinion, and
the discussions were recorded using voice recorders
and were later transcribed. With focus group meetings,
the goal was to have a detailed discussion among
social stakeholders and to gain insights into their
understanding of late school enrollment (Nakip,
2005). Numerous ideas were brought into discussion
during these meetings and the data were collected to
understand the needs, motivations, and attitudes of
target population to better interpret the findings of the
current research.
In the beginning of these meetings, some time was
spent to warm up, and this time was used for everyone
to meet and get to know each other and to express
their ideas more comfortably. Following warm up
time, the problem was defined, and the thoughts and
opinions of the participants and their experiences in
the areas they live regarding the issue at hand were
discussed. Next, the reasons for and possible solutions
suggested by the participants were discussed. As a
result, three main topics, identification and definition
of the problem, the reasons for why it happens and
possible solutions to help solve the problem, were
discussed in these meetings.
In these focus group meetings, parents (n=3),
teachers and principals of schools (n=13), mukhtars
(n=6), local administrators (n=2), MDNE district
directors (n=5), religious employees (n=5),
representatives from NGOs (n=5) and members
of local media (n=3) were included. The number
of participants and who the participants were are
included in Table 12.
Table 12. Participants of the focus groups disaggregated by the backgrounds of
the stakeholders
Parents
Teachers and principals of schools, Inspectors
Participants
expected
Between 5-7
Between 5-8
Participants
reached
3
13
Village and neighborhood district mukhtars
Between 5-7
6
Local governments
Between 5-8
2
Province/City MONE directors
Between 5-8
5
Imams
Between 5-7
5
Representatives of NGOs
Between 5-8
5
Local media workers
Between 5-7
3
40-60
42
Total
2.3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews took place in the homes
of participants by a trained data collector using a
questionnaire prepared for the research. The goal was
to identify and define the problem, obtain subjective
thoughts and experiences of the participants and to
examine how people in the region experienced the
problem. It was also expected that participants would
give their insights into the reasons and solutions
for the problem. Even though question categories
prepared for the quantitative research were kept the
same for the semi-structured interviews, participants
were encouraged to feel free to expand on any topic
they wished to talk about with a hope that more of the
insiders’ experiences would be explored.
As can be seen in Table 13, parents (n=6) and religious
employees (n=6) were the two groups that had the
fewest number of semi-structured interviews. Most
of the interviews were completed with teachers,
principals and national education inspectors (n=14),
and the members of local media (n=14). When the
number of participants for the semi-structured
interviews was examined based on the provinces they
lived in, it was found that least number of participants
came from Şanlıurfa with 13 people, and the highest
number of participants came from Ağrı with 23 people.
45
Imams
Province/city MONE
directors
Village and
neighborhood district
mukhtars
Inspectors and principals
of schools, teachers
Representatives of
NGOs
Local
media workers
Local
administrators
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
1
3
5
2
3
2
2
3
23
14
18
27,1
16,5
21,2
Şanlıurfa
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
13
15,3
Van
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
17
20
Total
6
6
10
11
14
12
14
12
85
100
%
Total
Parents
Table 13. Number of social stakeholders in semi-structured interviews
Province/City
MONE directors
Village and
neighborhood
Inspectors and
principals
Representatives of
NGOs
Local media
workers
Local
governments
5
1
6
6
6
10
10
10
1
11
10
4
14
11
1
12
14
14
12
12
The average age of the participants was 40, and most
of the participants were between the ages of 25 and 44
(See Appendix Table 5). When the educational levels of
the participants were examined, it was found that most
of the participants (52 people) were graduates of a
university and only 3 of the participants were illiterate
(See Appendix Table 6). Examination of the occupations
revealed that the majority of the participants had
professional jobs and the most frequently held job was
being an “educator” (See Appendix Table 7).
46
Overall Total
Imams
Male
Female
Total
Parents
Table 14. Social stakeholder participants disaggregated by gender
78
7
85
With 91% of the participants having more than a year,
and 67% of the participants having more than 5 years,
the majority of the participants were experienced at
their jobs. Considering that participants are sharing
their opinions based on their own experiences, it was
important that they have some experience at their
current positions (See Appendix Table 8).
2.4. Data collection procedure
Three qualified researchers were appointed to work in
the five provinces studied for the qualitative research.
Moreover, there were three other people working in
the İstanbul office to organize the interviews and the
focus group meetings. On June 2, 2009, the qualified
researchers started their work by conducting their
first semi-structured interviews in Diyarbakır. After
Diyarbakır, interviews were carried out in Şanlıurfa,
Bitlis, Van and Ağrı provinces. In the provinces they
went for the semi-structured interviews, they held five
focus group meetings consisting of one per province.
Started on June 2, 2009, the field work for the
qualitative research ended on June 29, 2009 in Ağrı.
When the data collectors moved from one province
to another, they sent their data including interview
documents and voice recording to the headquarters
of the company for transcription. When the procedure
was completed, findings of the semi-structured
interviews and the focus group meetings were written
up for the final report.
The first week of field work for quantitative research
was spent in training, starting on June 8, 2009. During
the training, information about the research prior to its
start, such as the goals of the research, importance,
and the time frame for the research were provided.
Next, each question in the questionnaire was examined
and the reasons for why each question was asked
were discussed, as well as how these questions would
be asked, and how the answers would be recorded
were all part of the training. In addition, the data
collectors were educated about how to identify the
addresses of the participants and use of the address
templates, preparation of progress reports for the
field work, quality check procedures, organizational
structure, the roles and responsibilities of the field
personnel, and their job descriptions. During the data
collection procedure, the data collectors were taught
to read the questions thoroughly before their answers
were taken for the participants who can read and
write. When interviewing the participants who cannot
read or write, the data collectors were taught to read
the questions thoroughly, make sure the participant
understood the question, and provide additional,
predetermined explanations when needed. At the end
of the training, different participant characters were
developed and the data collectors were given a chance
to practice data collection with them. In addition, data
collectors who speak both local language and Turkish
were given preference. When this was not possible,
data collectors were informed to select a parent, if
not a family member, to interview who can speak both
Turkish and local language. There were seven teams
of data collectors. These teams carried out their work
simultaneously in different provinces. In addition, for
field work, there was one fieldwork coordinator, and
an assistant fieldwork coordinator and supervisors in
each of the provinces. Fieldwork for the quantitative
research was carried out between June 10, 2009 and
July 7, 2009. Completed questionnaires were sent
out to the main office immediately to be checked for
accuracy and phone controls. Next, questionnaires
that were checked for errors were examined for
coding of the open ended questions using a code book
prepared prior to data collection and all the open
ended responses were coded. For questionnaire entry
a new program that has a self-check feature was used.
Next the questionnaires that were entered into the
computer using this program were transferred into
MySQL database. After the data entry and check were
complete, the findings were statistically examined and
results interpreted.
The results of this study were presented at a
workshop that focused on ways to address late
school enrollment following the completion of the
workshop, a report was prepared, which can be found
in Appendix-III. The final stage of the research was to
prepare the final report.
47
SEPTEMBER
2009
OCTOBER
2009
NOVEMBER
2009
DECEMBER
2009
AUGUST
2009
JULY 2009
JUNE 2009
MAY 2009
Table 15. Timeline for the current research
Preparation of Initial Report
•Literature Review
•Preparation of Database
•Sample Selection
•Preparation of Questionnaires for Qualitative
and Quantitative Research
Conducting Qualitative and Quantitative Research
• Qualitative and Quantitative Research Interviews
• Transcribing voice records and Recording of Qualitative
Research Findings
• Quantitative Research Questionnaire Check, Coding,
and Data Entry
Data Analysis and Report Writing
• Analyzing Qualitative Research Findings and
Report Writing
• Analyzing Quantitative Research Findings
• Draft Report
Developing Strategies and Preparing Workshops
• Experts Workshop
• Stakeholders Workshop
Preparation of Final Report
2.5. Limitations
Because of geographical, sociological and economical
conditions of the area researched, some difficulties
were experienced during data collection.
Difficulties faced during quantitative research process
• Some neighborhoods and villages did not have
proper address labeling.
• During fieldwork, the schools were closed and
some families were not found at their addresses
due to reasons like seasonal migrant work
(Particularly in the province of Şanlıurfa, seasonal
and migrant farm work starts around March and
ends around November).
48
• In Hakkari, the data collectors were not allowed
entry into the city because of security measures,
and they were faced to wait outside of the city for
a day.
• In all the provinces, data collectors had to
go through security checks. These checks were
not always lengthy.
• Problems with access to the addresses
included in the sample were experienced. One
of the main reasons for this was that many of
these villages had very limited transportation
options.
• Because local language is widely spoken in the
provinces included in the study, most of
the time, a data collector that spoke local language was interviewing with the people in the family.
However, from time to time, when the data
collector could not speak local language and neither of the parents of the children spoke
Turkish,communication problems were experienced. When this was experienced, somebody else in the household, who could speak Turkish and could give the information asked for was interviewed.
• Some parents that were selected in the sample
refused to answer the questions that were
included in the questionnaires.
Problems experienced in the qualitative data
collection:
• From time to time, because some of the
interviewed people were bureaucrats, difficulties
were experienced when arranging an appropriate
time to set for the interviews.
• Some of the interviews were during the time
of inspections in the Directorate of Education
in the provinces, which necessitated that
changes in the organization for the meetings
and the interviews needed to be made.
• Because the fieldwork was carried out during
the summer break, reaching teachers and the
principals was difficult at times.
• Participants of the semi-structured interviews
were mostly from the stakeholder groups, very
few parents were interviewed.
2.6. Data analysis and the research
report
After completing the data collection and the accuracy
checks, data were entered into SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences) and analyzed.
Frequency and percentage values for all the variables
were calculated and interpreted. Descriptive analyses
were run for continuous variables and Likert scale
questions. Where it was found appropriate, in order to
see the distribution of the data sum, average, and ratio
statistics were calculated. For population predictions,
mass total, average and ratio were calculated. In
addition to descriptive and frequency distributions,
cross tabulations were computed and interpreted
using Chi-square statistics.
Independent t-test analyses were used to compare the
scores of two independent groups. When the groups
compared were more than two analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used. Appropriate post hoc analyses
based on whether the distributions of the scores in
the groups were homogeneous or not were computed
when the group differences were significant.
While preparing the reports of the quantitative
analyses, separating children who are currently
unenrolled and those who enrolled in school with a
year delay was thought to be more appropriate. By
implementing such a practice, it was expected that the
similarities and the differences of the two groups could
be understood more clearly. By separating these two
groups of children, making predictions for who would
continue to be unenrolled and who would possibly
enroll in schools among the unenrolled children
could be understood. In order to both compare the
results for the two groups, and to see the results for
the overall sample, in the tables, there were three
columns labeled as late enrollment, no enrollment
and not enrolling on time (both groups combined). The
definitions provided in the conceptual scheme of the
“Initial Report” were used for these labels.
Voice recording and the interview forms were
examined for the report of the qualitative research.
Focus group meetings were transcribed and grouped
under several headings based on the information
obtained. The information obtained from the semistructured interviews was examined based on how
the stakeholders expressed them and grouped
under several themes. After the completion of
the examination of the documents obtained
from the qualitative research, initially prepared
individually, quantitative and qualitative findings
were merged. interviews was examined based on
how the stakeholders expressed and grouped them
under several themes. After the completion of the
examination of the documents obtained from the
qualitative research, initially prepared individually,
quantitative and qualitative findings were merged.
49
2.7. Conceptual definitions
2.7.1. Not enrolling in school on time
This term is used to describe the entire cohort of
children who were born in 2001, and even though
they were completing 72 months of age in the 2007 –
2008 academic year, they had not enrolled in primary
schools during that particular academic year. These
children could be either those who had enrolled in
schools a year late, or they could still be unenrolled at
the time of data collection, two years after they were
at the determined age for school enrollment.
2.7.2. Late enrollment/Late entrants
These children were born in the year 2001 and were
at the age of 72 months or older and eligible to attend
school in 2007 – 2008 educational year. However,
these children were not enrolled in school that year,
but attended school the following year with a year
delay.
2.7.3. No enrollment/Unenrolled children
This term is used to refer to children who were born in
the year 2001 and were not enrolled in school during
the 2007 – 2008 academic year, or the year following
this even though they were 72 months of age or older
at the time and were eligible to attend school. These
children were currently unenrolled in schools at the
time of data collection.
3. FINDINGS
3.1. Household members
3.1.1. Number of people living in
the household
Families that were included in this study were
generally living in crowded households with at least 3
or more other people. The percentage of three or more
people living in the household were 91% in the late
entrants, and it was 95.6% in no enrollment ones.
When the average number of people living in these
households was examined, it was found that in
the late-entrants’ group average number of family
members was 7.38 (SD: 2.53). The average number of
people living in the same household was more in the
no-entry group (M= 7. 72, SD= 2.44). Total number of
people living in the households that were included in
the study was 298,872±1340. Distribution of number
of people living in the households that were included
in the study can be found in Table 16.
Figure 10. Total number of people living in the household (%)
Not enrolling on time [Total ]
Base: 1975 People
50
Table 16. Descriptive statistics for the number of household members2
Maximum
2
3
22
16
Total
People
7.086
1.051
7,43
2,52
2
22
8.137
Average
959
136
1.095
Late enrollment
Unenrolled
(Total)
Minimum
7,38
7,72
Standard
Deviation
2,53
2,44
N
Household structures of the children who did not enter
school when eligible were examined and it was found
that most of the people living in these households
were children (69.1%), while 26.5 % of the people
living in these households were parents. Extended
family members like grandparents were only 4.4% of
the total number of people living in these households.
Therefore, despite being large, the structures of these
families were primarily nuclear including mothers,
fathers and children.
3.1.2. Relationship status of the
household members living
together
Table 17 shows in detail the people living in the
household based on their relationship with the target
child. As expected, siblings, mothers and fathers were
represented in these households the most.
Table 17. Household members shown based on their relationship to the target children
(Details are shown in Appendix Table 9)*
Late enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
3.918
959
55,4
13,6
593
136
56,5
13
4.511
1.095
55,6
13,5
Mother
954
13,5
134
12,8
1.088
13,4
Father
933
13,2
131
12,5
1.064
13,1
Grandmother
77
1,1
12
1,1
89
1,1
Other
228
3,2
44
4,2
272
3,3
Total
7.069
100
1.050
100
8.119
100
Sibling
Target child
*People who did not answered this question were not included in the table.
2
Descriptive statistics: These are the statistics used to explain the distribution of the data (range, median, kurtosis, skewness, mean,
variance, standard deviation, etc.), measures of central tendency (the mean, median, mode, exchange rate, etc.), charting of the data (box
charts, diagrams of distribution, branch-leaf drawings, histograms) and statistical tables.
51
3.1.3. Age distribution of the household 3.1.4. Gender distribution of the
members
household members
In order to understand why some children do not enroll
in school when they are eligible, and to understand
the family structures of the children, it is important
to examine the characteristics of the family members
living in the same household. Again, when the age
distribution in the household was examined, the
number of young people is clearly noticeable. When
this finding if examined in detail, it can be seen that
55.5% of the people living in these households were
15 years old or younger. Those who were under 20
years of age constituted 82.1% of the people living
in these households. These findings show that, these
households have a significant number of children who
could potentially be students either at primary, middle
or high school levels (See Appendix Table 10).
When the number of people living in these households
was examined based on sex, it was found that both
late enrollment group and the unenrolled group were
not very different in terms of distribution of males
and females living at home. In the late enrollment
group, the number of females living at home were
49.1% of the entire population of people living in these
household, whereas females constituted 52% of the
people living at home in the unenrolled group(Figure
11).
Figure 11. Gender distribution of the household members (%)
52
3.1.5. Educational distribution of the
household members
When the educational levels of the household
members who are over 15 years of age were examined,
it was found that a significant number of these people
were illiterate. In the late enrollment group, 42.3%
of the household members were illiterate whereas
this was 53.5% in the unenrolled group. In the late
enrollment group, household members who are over
15 years of age and had education higher than primary
level (includes high school drop-outs) constituted
10.3%, and in the unenrolled group, this group
constituted 6.7% of the household members. People
with primary school education constituted 19.5% of
the late enrollment group, and in the unenrolled group
people with primary school education constituted
17.5%. Even though people living in the households of
both groups had lower educational levels, the people
in the unenrolled group had considerably lower levels
of education. When the sample was examined as a
whole, it was found that 43.8+4.13% of the people
living in the participating households were illiterate
(Figure 12).
Figure 12. Educational levels of household members older than 15 years of age (%)
3.1.6. Relationship between education
and gender based on living in rural or
urban residential areas
The educational levels and gender distribution of
everyone, children and adults alike, were examined
based on whether they lived in rural or urban areas both
for unenrolled and late enrollment groups. Results were
presented both with children 5 years old and under
included and excluded. Strikingly, results show that
women, both in rural and urban areas were unable to
benefit from educational opportunities. Particularly, in
the unenrolled group, and among those who live in the
rural living areas of this group, independent of including
53
children 5 years old and under in the analysis, women
had the worst educational levels. This is an extremely
alarming situation. When the results were examined
in detail, it was found that when children 5 and under
were included in the analysis, in the late enrollment
group, 48% of the females in the urban living areas and
51.9% of females in the rural living areas were illiterate.
When children 5 years old and under were exluded from
the analysis, it was found that in the late enrollment
group, 39.3% of the females, and in the rural living
areas 42.9% of the females were illiterate.
The results were also examined for the unenrolled
group, which includes children who stayed out of
school two years in a row, and the situation was found
to be even more problematic. In this group, 73.9% of
all women and female children in rural areas, 68.7% of
the all women and female children in urban areas were
illiterate. These numbers include all female members
of the households including young female children.
When the educational levels of the females at or above
6 years of age were examined, it was found that in
rural areas 60.2% of the females, and in urban areas
53.9% of the females were deprived of any educational
opportunities.
The situation was somewhat different for the male
members of the households. Findings indicated that
in the late enrollment group, 31,5% of the males,
and in the unenrolled group 28,9% of the males were
illiterate. When only the males at or above 6 years
of age were examined, even though their levels of
illiteracy were above national averages, the situation
seemed much better than females: 18,3% of the males
in the rural living areas and 16,8% of the males in the
urban living areas were illiterate.
As it was the case for women, men who were in the
unenrolled group were at a higher disadvantage.
Accordingly, in the unenrolled group, 46,5% of the
males living in the urban areas, and 53,4% of the
males living in rural areas were illiterate. In the rural
areas, 37,7% of the males 6 years and above, and
29,7% of the males, again 6 years and above, in the
urban areas were illiterate. These numbers illustrate
how serious the problem is. Although children under
54
the age of 6 were included in the results, children 5
years of age and under were about 15% both in rural
and urban areas of the late enrollment group.
In the research population, the total number of
children younger than 6 years of age, living in the
households of children who were not enrolled in school
at the determined age for school enrollment, there
were a total of 135.428±243. Based on the social and
economical backgrounds of these families, it can be
argued that these people are at risk for not enrolling in
school on time.
The educational levels of the household members
based on their sex and the provinces they live in are
presented in Table 18 for the late enrollment group,
and the same data were presented for the unenrolled
group in Table 19.
55
0,5
4,3
6,1
37,9
3,2
0,3
0,6
0,2
0
0
0
0
100
6
53
76
470
40
4
8
3
0
0
0
0
1.240
No schooling
Early childhood education
Primary school graduate
Primary school drop-out
Primary school student
-(1st through 8th)
High school drop-out
High school student
High school graduate
University drop-out
University student
Graduate of university and above
Currently attending occupational
training
Total
Can read and write
%
42,8
4,0
Frequency
531
49
Female
1.307
0
1
9
0
27
26
6
121
535
85
192
4
Frequency
239
62
Male
100
0,0
0,1
0,7
0,0
2,1
2,0
0,5
9,3
40,9
6,5
14,7
0,3
2.547
0
1
9
0
30
34
10
161
1005
161
245
10
% Frequency
18,3
770
4,7
111
Total
100
0
0,0
0,4
0,0
1,2
1,3
0,4
6,3
39,5
6,3
9,6
0,4
%
30,2
4,4
1.673
0
4
1
0
18
37
6
64
659
80
95
7
100
0,0
0,2
0,1
0,0
1,1
2,2
0,4
3,8
39,4
4,8
5,7
0,4
%
39,2
2,8
Female
Frequency
655
47
Rural living areas
1.701
1
10
11
0
75
70
25
132
688
88
234
6
Frequency
286
75
Male
100
0,1
0,6
0,6
0,0
4,4
4,1
1,5
7,8
40,4
5,2
13,8
0,4
%
16,8
4,4
Urban living areas
live in rural and urban areas in the late enrollment group (Late Enrollment)
3.374
1
14
12
0
93
107
31
196
1347
168
329
13
Frequency
941
122
100
0,0
0,4
0,4
0,0
2,8
3,2
0,9
5,8
39,9
5,0
9,8
0,4
%
27,9
3,6
Total
56
60,2
2,8
0,0
4,0
4,0
12,0
2,4
0,0
0,0
0,4
0,0
0,4
100
150
7
0
10
10
30
6
0
0
1
0
1
249
Can read and write
Early childhood education
Primary school graduate-(1st
through 8th)
High school student
University student
Graduate of university and above
Total
No schooling
%
Female
Frequency
247
0
0
4
2
0
15
37
17
32
0
8
93
Frequency
Male
100
0,0
0,0
1,6
0,8
0,0
6,1
15,0
6,9
13,0
0,0
3,2
37,7
%
496
1
0
5
2
0
21
67
27
42
0
15
243
Frequency
Total
Rural living areas
100
0,2
0,0
1,0
0,4
0,0
4,2
13,5
5,4
8,5
0,0
3,0
49,0
%
297
0
0
1
3
0
14
47
16
9
0
3
160
Frequency
%
100
0,0
0,0
0,3
1,0
0,0
4,7
15,8
5,4
3,0
0,0
1,0
53,9
Female
256
1
4
5
4
3
14
56
12
27
1
10
76
Frequency
Male
100
0,4
1,6
2,0
1,6
1,2
5,5
21,9
4,7
10,5
0,4
3,9
29,7
%
553
1
4
6
7
3
28
103
28
36
1
13
236
Frequency
%
100
0,2
0,7
1,1
1,3
0,5
5,1
18,6
5,1
6,5
0,2
2,4
42,7
Total
Urban living areas
live in rural and urban areas in the unenrolled group (No enrollment)
3.1.7. Relationship between age and
sex based on living in rural and
urban residential areas
The relationship between age and gender as a function
of living in rural or urban areas was examined both for
the late enrollment and no enrollment groups. Results
indicate that, in both groups, both males and females
were relatively young. This was similar both for rural
and urban living areas. In other words, more than half
of the people living in the participating households
were at or younger than 14 years of age (See Appendix
Table 11).
Figure 13. Age and gender distribution in the rural and urban living areas (%)
(Late Enrollment )
Urban living areas
Rural living areas
The relationship between living in rural or urban areas
and gender was examined for the no enrollment group.
Results indicated that, similar to late enrollment were
children 15 years of age or younger. This was the case
both for males and females (See Appendix Table 12).
Figure 14. Age and gender distribution in the rural and urban living areas (%)
(No enrollment )
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
57
3.1.8. Relationship between education and sex for household members 15 years and
older
For the people who are older than 15 years of age,
out of the mandatory schooling age4 , and living in
the household, the relationship between gender and
educational levels and living in urban or rural areas
was examined. In this case as well, a more pessimistic
picture emerged for women. In the late enrollment
group, 66% of the women who were at or above 15
years of age and living in rural areas cannot read or
write whereas in the urban areas this becomes 61%.
Including primary school, graduating from any school
was only 17,8% for the women living in the rural
areas, whereas it was 25.1% in the urban areas. Males
at or above 15 years of age were at a much greater
advantage than females. In the rural areas, 20,9% of
men were illiterate, and 66% had graduated from any
school.
Table 20. Sex and education distribution in the late enrollment group for household
members 15 years and above living in the rural and urban areas (Late Enrollment)
Rural living areas
Female
No schooling
Can read and write
through 8th)
High school student
University student
University and higher
Attending occupational training
Total
4
Urban living areas
Male
Female
Male
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
422
43
53
55
12
66,0
6,7
8,3
8,6
1,9
139
61
189
67
25
20,9
9,2
28,4
10,1
3,8
529
46
95
51
23
61,0
5,3
11,0
5,9
2,7
189
75
231
75
44
20,2
8,0
24,7
8,0
4,7
39
6,1
115
17,3
59
6,8
129
13,8
4
8
3
0
0
0
639
0,6
1,3
0,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
100
6
26
27
9
1
0
665
0,9
3,9
4,1
1,4
0,2
0,0
100
6
36
18
1
3
0
867
0,7
4,2
2,1
0,1
0,3
0,0
100
25
70
75
11
10
1
935
2,7
7,5
8,0
1,2
1,1
0,1
100
Primary Education and Training Act (Act Number 222) Article 46 - Every child who has entered the age of compulsory primary education
is accepted to a school for primary education in accordance with Article 3. Each parent or guardian or head of family, is required to register
his or her children to primary schools.
The person who is stated as “family head” in this act refers to the people who have these children live with them or for whom these
children work for when there is no parent or legal guardian present. Children who were not able to graduate at the end of educational year
of the final year of compulsory schooling are given maximum two years of extension to complete compulsory education, in other words,
primary schooling. Children who were not able to complete their education successfully by the end of these two years are given a certification showing the number of years completed in school given to children and their school enrollments are terminated.
58
When the data were examined for the group of
unenrolled children, it was found that in the rural
areas women were illiterate at much higher rates
(74,5%), and only 14,2% had graduated from any
level of school, including primary school. In the urban
areas, the educational level of the women were not
much different from women in the rural areas, with
the rate of illiteracy among women at 68%, and the
rate for completing any schooling was 18,8%. For the
men as well in this group, it was found that both in
rural and urban areas, the educational levels were low.
As a result, in the rural living areas of the unenrolled
children’s group, 34,5% of the men, whereas in the
urban areas 30,1% of the men were illiterate. The rate
for completing any schooling including primary schools
for men was 47% (See Appendix Table 13).
3.1.9. Employment status of the
household members
When the people living in the household were
examined based on their employment status,
the results that emerged was not very surprising
considering the number of children living in these
households. In these households, only 13% of the
household members were employed. Findings were
similar both in late enrollment and no enrollment
groups. When the employment statuses of the
household members were examined in the late
enrollment group, it was found that 46,3% of people
between the ages of 40 and 44 were employed. In the
group for unenrolled children, the people who were
employed the most were between the ages of 35 and
39 with 45,6% (See Appendix Table 14).
Table 21. Distribution of the employment status of the household members*
Late Enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Unemployed
Employed
6.120
922
86,9
13,1
916
134
87,2
12,8
7,036
1,056
87,0
13,0
Total
7.042
100
1,050
100
8,092
100
* People who did not answer this question were not included in the table.
3.1.10. Employment status of the
household members 15 years of
age and above
Of those household members who are at or above 15
years of age and out of compulsory schooling age,
29% of them were currently employed. This rate was
similar both in the late enrollment and no enrollment
groups. When this was calculated for the research
population, it was found to be 30,5% ±2.21.
Examination of the types of jobs the household
members were holding underscores the seriousness of
unemployment for both groups. Among the employed,
the most common jobs were those that do not earn
much revenue like, skilled or unskilled labor work,
freelance or temporary labor work, farming, and
seasonal work. The percentage of family members
with jobs like state employee/civil servant, soldier,
managers or professionals among people 15 years and
above were only 2.5% in the late enrollment group
and, 2.6% in the unenrolled group.
59
Table 22. Employment status of household members 15 years of age and above*
Late Enrollment
(Total)
No enrollment
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Unemployed
Employed
2.203
901
71,0
29,0
331
132
71,5
28,5
2.534
1.033
71,0
29,0
Total
3.104
100
463
100
3.567
100
Table 23. Types of jobs held by household members 15 years of age and older
(More details can be found in Appendix Table 15.)
Late Enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Stay at home mother
Unemployed
1.058
768
34,1
24,7
157
135
33,9
29,2
1.215
903
34,1
25,3
Unskilled labor work
342
11,0
62
13,4
404
11,3
Student
263
8,5
24
5,2
287
8,0
Farming / livestock
Self-employed/Freelancer
Travelling to other cities
for seasonal work
Not at the employment
age
Skilled worker
152
4,9
25
5,4
177
5,0
119
3,8
10
2,2
129
3,6
78
2,5
11
2,4
89
2,5
73
2,4
8
1,7
81
2,3
62
2,0
6
1,3
68
1,9
Owns estate
56
1,8
7
1,5
63
1,8
Small business/trading
36
1,2
3
0,6
39
1,1
Other
97
3,1
15
3,2
112
3,0
Total
3.104
100
463
100
3.567
100
Explanations for some of the codes
:Employs 3 or fewer people, such as convenient store owner or produce store, trader etc.
Professional freelancer
:Doctor, lawyer, and architect etc.
Self-employed/Freelancer:Driver, seller, etc.
Skilled worker
:Received occupational training
Owns estate
:Owns farm, land, etc. and receives income from them
60
3.1.11. Whether the household members
have social security
Healthy development of the household members,
particularly children would depend on whether they
have access to social security. When the households in
the sample were examined for their status of holding
social security, it was found that in the late enrollment
group 71,8% of families had social security, and in the
no enrollment 80,9%. Very few families benefited from
SGK (Social Security Institution, SSI). Of those families
interviewed, 12,5% of them had no social security,
hence no health insurance. When the employment
status and the types of jobs the households were seen
in the household included in the sample, this is not
very surprising .
Figure 15. Whether the household members have social security* (%)
* People who did not answer this question were not included in this graph.
** SGK: SSI, Pension Fund, Bağ-Kur
3.2. Characteristics of children in
the household
3.2.1. Number of children in the
household
The number of children living in the household was
examined. It was found that the majority of the people
living in the household were children (n=5676). Of
these children 2785 of them were students. When the
participants were asked how many of the children in
their households were students, in the late enrollment
group, the most frequently seen number of children
per household were two (28.9%). In the households
with children who were born in 2001, not yet enrolled
in schools (unenrolled), the most frequently repeated
number of students living in the household was one
with 36%. In this group, in 22.8% of the households,
there were no children who were attending school (See
Table 24). When the average number of children who
were students were examined, in the late enrollment,
the average number of students was 2.69 (SD=1.34),
whereas in the unenrolled group it was 1.9 (SD=1.05).
61
Table 24. Distribution of number of student household members
Late Enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
-
-
31
22,8
31
2,8
1 Child
193
20,1
49
36,0
242
22,1
2 Children
277
28,9
27
19,9
304
27,8
3 Children
250
26,1
22
16,2
272
24,8
4 Children
143
14,9
5
3,7
148
13,5
5 Children and more
96
10,0
2
1,5
98
8,9
Total
959
100
136
100
1.095
100
No student in the household
Examination of the number of children per household
indicated that in the late enrollment group, the most
repeated number was 4 (21,3%), and in the
no enrollment group, the most repeated number of
children seen was 6 (19,9%). The statistics that show
the number of children living in the households can be
found in Table 25.
Table 25. Number of children living in the household
Late enrollment
Number of Children
62
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
1 Child
16
1,7
1
0,7
17
1,6
2 Children
3 Children
4 Children
5 Children
6 Children
7 Children
80
137
204
153
131
95
8,3
14,3
21,3
16,0
13,7
9,9
5
25
19
25
27
9
3,7
18,4
14,0
18,4
19,9
6,6
85
162
223
178
158
104
7,8
14,8
20,4
16,3
14,4
9,5
8 Children
9 Children
58
48
6,0
5,0
10
10
7,4
7,4
68
58
6,2
5,3
10 Children
17
1,8
2
1,5
19
1,7
11 Children +…
20
2,1
3
2,2
23
2,1
Total
959
100
136
100
1.095
100
When the number of children living at home was
examined, it was found that the late enrollment
and the no enrollment groups were similar. There
was an average of at least 5 children living in these
households. However, in the no enrollment group there
were more households with 6 children living at home.
When the situation was examined in detail, it was
found that in the late enrollment group the average
was 5.14 (SD= 2.31), and in the no enrollment group
the average was 5.43 (SD= 2,24 ). The Population and
Health Survey of Turkey (2003) based on interviews
with 10.836 households was conducted with the
main purpose of providing data on fertility rates and
the changes in reproductive strategies, infant and
child mortality, family planning, maternal and child
health and nutrition. The number of people living in
the households of Turkey was 4.1 in 2003. However,
the findings of the current research show that even
just the number of children living in the households of
children who were not enrolled in school on time were
more than the national average of
total household members. As it was discussed earlier,
in the households of the current research the average
number of people living in each household was 7.43.
When this number is compared with the numbers
obtained from 2003 survey (4.1), it can be clearly seen
that the households of children who did not enroll in
schools on time are much more crowded.
3.2.2. Children living outside of home
Approximately 8% of the households included in the
study (late enrollment=7.7%; unenrolled= 9,6%)
had children who lived outside the household. These
children were mainly out of home because either
they were serving in the military or they were working
somewhere else. The other reason given for why
the child was living out of the home was education.
However, these children were very few, and in the late
enrollment group, only 10,9% of the children who live
outside of home were there for reasons related to
education.
Figure 16. Reasons for children living outside of the household (%)*
* More than one answer was given.
63
3.2.3. Whether students in the household
attend boarding schools
When the numbers of children who go to regional
boarding schools were compared with the children who
are currently staying at home, in the late enrollment
group only 26 children, and 1.1% of all the students
in the household, were attending boarding schools.
The number of children who were attending boarding
schools was only 6, 3,4 % of all the student children
living at home. Even though these numbers are
very few, in the unenrolled group, the percentage
of children attending boarding schools was slightly
higher. Of those children who attend boarding schools,
17 of them in the late enrollment group and 4 of
them in no enrollment group had a mother who had
no education. When the number of children living in
these households was examined, a relatively higher
number of children were observed, indicating that an
average of 6.83 children in the late enrollment group
and an average of 6.75 children lived in the unenrolled.
Findings also indicated that all the children who
attended boarding schools in the unenrolled group and
18 children in the late enrollment group were male
children. There were only 6 female children in the late
enrollment group who attended boarding schools.
Table 26. Whether students in the household attend boarding schools*
Late enrollment
No
Yes
Total
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
2.439
26
2.465
98,9
1,1
100
169
6
175
96,6
3,4
100
2.608
32
2.640
98,8
1,2
100
3. 3. Characteristics of the parents
3.3.1. Whether the mothers and fathers
are biological parents
Parents were asked whether they were the biological
parents of their children. Findings indicated that
only a small fraction of children lived without their
biological parents. In the late enrollment group, only
18 children (1,9%), and in the no enrollment group 6
children (4.4%) were without either their biological
fathers or mothers. Of these parents, 20 of them
were fathers and 7 of them were mothers (only one
child had neither biological father nor the biological
mother around). Of those parents who were not with
their biological children, 15 of them were deceased,
64
and the remaining 12 were living elsewhere. In the
late enrollment group, only two parents regularly
visited with their biological children, five never saw
their children, and three visited with their children
irregularly. In the no enrollment group, when the
parents who were deceased were excluded, one of
the remaining two parents had no contact with their
children and the other one had regular visits with her
child. Of these parents who lived outside of the home,
only 2 of them in the late enrollment group provided
financial help with the child’s expenses.
Figure 17. Whether the parent child is living together is a stepparent or a biological parent (%)
When the characteristics of and interactions with the
biological parent who does not reside with the children
were examined, the following were found;
• In the late enrollment group, 15% of the
children did not live with their biological fathers
and 5% did not live with their biological mothers.
• Of these no enrollment children, 5 of them did not
live with the biological fathers and two of them did
not live with biological mothers.
When it was examined whether the parent who did
not live at home with the child was alive or
deceased;
• 10% of children in the late enrollment group,
and
• 5% of children in unenrolled group had biological
parents who did not live with them
• In the late enrollment group, five children did
not have regular contact, 3 had no contact, and 2
had regular contact,
• In the unenrolled group, 1 child had no contact,
and 1 child had regular contact.
When how much children had contact with their
biological parents who lived outside the home was
examined:
• In the late enrollment group, 3 of them had one
or two days a week, one of them had one a month
and one of them had once a year contact;
• In the unenrolled group, one of them had one or
two days a week contact.
When the marital status of the biological parent was
examined;
• In late enrollment group, 4 of them were
married, 2 of them were divorced, 3 of them were
widowed and 1 one of them was separated,
• In no enrollment group, one of the parents was
married, and the other one was divorced.
When the types of jobs of the biological parents
who lived outside the home was examined;
• In the late enrollment group, 3 of them were
farmers/feeding livestock, 2 of them were
temporary freelance workers, 1 of them was a civil
servant, 1 of them was unskilled worker, 1 of them
was unemployed,
• In no enrollment group, one parent was a stay at
home mother .
65
When whether the biological parent who lived outside
the home had made any financial contributions was
examined;
• In the late enrollment group, 8 of them had not
helped with the finances and 2 of them had helped,
• In the no enrollment group, neither of the parents
had helped with the finances.
3.3.2. Characteristics of the mothers
3.3.2.1. Ages and the marital statuses of the
mothers
wide range of ages. The youngest mother was only 23,
and the oldest mother was 59 years old. Even though
the age range was wide, the findings indicated that the
majority of the mothers had ages that were between
25 and 44. In the late enrollment group the average
age of the mothers was 35.13 (SD=6.92), and in the
group of unenrolled children, the average age was
35.96 (SD=6.98). It can be seen in Figure 18 that the
distribution of mother ages were similar in both late
and unenrolled groups.
When the ages of the mothers included in the sample
were examined, it was noticed that the mothers had a
Figure 18. Distribution of the mothers’ ages based on 5 year age ranges (%)
Moreover, on the contrary to what was expected, both
in the unenrolled and late enrollment groups, almost
97% of the mothers had civil marriages, and
66
only five mothers had religious marriages performed
only by imams without a civil marriage service (See
Table 27).
Table 27. Distribution of mothers based on their marital status
Late enrollment
With civil marriage
certificates
Widow
Religious marriage only
Living together
Divorced
Separated
Total
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
924
96,9
129
96,3
1.053
96,8
16
5
3
3
3
1,7
0,5
0,3
0,3
0,3
3
1
1
-
2,2
0,7
0,7
-
19
5
4
4
3
1,7
0,5
0,4
0,4
0,3
954
100
134
100
1.088
100
3.3.2.2. Educational status of mothers
Similar to the educational status of all the mothers
living in the same household, mothers had extremely
low educational levels and mothers who were illiterate
were considerably high. This indicates that in the
late enrollment group, 22.2% of the mothers and
in unenrolled group, 71.8% of the mothers did not
know how to read or write. This problem seemed
to be more of a problem in the group of unenrolled
children. Of these mothers, only 14.2% had enrolled
in school at some point in their lives. This includes
mothers who dropped out of schools and those who
received diplomas. Mothers who cannot read or write
constituted 85.1% of all the mothers. (See Appendix
Table 16).
When we consider the research population, in the
late school enrollment group, 71.6 % was illiterate
whereas in the unenrolled group the illiteracy levels of
the mothers go up to 87%.
3.3.2.3. Employment status of the mothers
When the employment status of the mothers was
examined nearly all of them were unemployed. The
percentage of mothers who were unemployed outside
of the home were 96.3% in the late enrollment group
and 96.2% were in the unenrolled group. These
mothers were stay at home mothers, in other words,
homemakers. The details of maternal educational
levels can be found in Appendix Table 16, and the
details of employment statuses of these mothers can
be found in Appendix Table 7.
3.3.3. Characteristics of the fathers
3.3.3.1. Ages and the marital statuses of
the fathers
When the ages of the fathers were examined, most
fathers were between the ages 25 and 49. In late
enrollment group, the youngest father was 22 years
old, and the oldest father was 75 years old. It was
found that the average age of the fathers in this group
was 38,68 (SD=7.71). In the group where the children
were still unenrolled in school two years after the
expected age for school entry, the age distribution was
similar to the late enrollment group. In this group, the
oldest father was 73, and the youngest father was 25
years old. The average age of the fathers was 39,97
(SD=8.87).
When the educational levels of the fathers were
examined, even though their illiteracy rates were
considerably high, the levels of illiteracy among
fathers were not as striking as mothers. As it was
the case for mothers, the rates of illiteracy for the
fathers were higher in the unenrolled group, (38,2%),
than it was in the late enrollment group (26,8%). In
both groups more than one third of the fathers were
primary school graduates.
67
Table 28. Distribution of the fathers’ ages based on 5 year age ranges (%)
Late enrollment
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
35-39
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
Total
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
No enrollment
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
5
84
207
441
441
46
22
11
4
1
923
0,5
9,1
22,4
47,8
47,8
5
2,4
1,2
0,4
0,1
100
14
24
58
58
10
3
1
2
131
10,7
18,3
44,3
44,3
7,6
2,3
0,8
1,5
100
5
98
231
499
499
56
25
12
4
2
1
1.054
0,5
9,3
21,9
47,3
47,3
5,3
2,4
1,1
0,4
0,2
0,1
100
Table 29. Distribution of the educational status of the fathers
Late enrollment
68
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No schooling
Can read and write
249
98
26,8
10,5
50
9
38,2
6,9
299
107
28,2
10,1
Primary school graduate-(1st through 8th)
University student
Graduate of a college or
higher
Attending vocational
training
Total
373
63
40,2
6,8
49
12
37,4
9,2
422
75
39,8
7,1
84
9,0
6
4,6
90
8,5
7
45
1
0,8
4,8
0,1
0
3
1
0,0
2,3
0,8
7
48
2
0,7
4,5
0,2
8
0,9
1
0,8
9
0,8
1
0,1
0
0,0
1
0,1
929
100
131
100
1.060
100
3.3.3.2. Employment status of the fathers
Parallel to the findings about the unemployment levels
of the household members, when fathers were examined about their employment statuses, it was found
that in the late enrollment group, 73.4% of the fathers,
and in the no enrollment group, 75.6% of the fathers
were currently unemployed. As it was seen in the
section about the types of jobs household members
engaged in, most of the fathers did not have a regular
job with a regular income. When the educational levels
of the fathers and the economical levels of the families
are taken into consideration, this result is as expected
and shows the levels of poverty these families are
experiencing.
Table 30. Types of jobs fathers hold*
(More information can be found in Appendix Table 18.)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
262
28,4
45
34,6
307
29,1
Unemployed
Farming / livestock
Self-employed/freelancer
Owns estate
Skilled labor
Travelling to other cities
for seasonal work
State employee/civil servant
Other
Total
233
123
110
49
47
25,2
13,3
11,9
5,3
5,1
31
18
7
7
5
23,8
13.8
5,4
5,4
3,8
264
141
117
56
52
25,0
13,4
11,1
5,3
4,9
28
3,0
8
6,2
36
3,4
30
3,2
1
0,8
31
2,9
23
2,5
5
3,8
28
2,7
19
924
2,1
100
3
130
2,3
100
22
1.054
2,1
100
3.3.4.Not enrolling in school on time and
parental education
Quantitative research findings clearly showed that
both the mothers and the fathers of children who did
not enroll in schools at the legally determined age
had very low levels of education, almost none of the
mothers had paid jobs outside the home, most fathers
had low-paying and irregular jobs requiring unskilled
labor work and unemployment levels were very high. In
fact, the educational levels of the mothers and fathers
were examined for late enrollment and no enrollment
groups separately. It was found that mothers and
fathers of children who were still outside the school
system had lower educational levels than those in the
late enrollment group. The group that had the lowest
educational levels was the mothers of unenrolled
children. These findings obtained from the quantitative
investigation clearly show that one of the biggest
predictors of children not enrolling in school on time is
the low educational levels of mothers and fathers.
Examination of the qualitative findings revealed
a similar picture showing that one of the biggest
contributors to late school enrollment was parental
educational levels. Examination of the qualitative
69
data in detail show that, particularly in focus group
meetings, participants often discussed the fact that
when mothers and fathers do not know how to read
or write, in other words, when they are not educated,
their children are at a greater risk for not enrolling
in school on time. Those who expressed this opinion
also stated that parents who themselves did not
get to experience schooling would have a difficult
time sending their children to school and they would
even perceive not sending their children to school
as “normal.” They also stated during the focus group
meeting discussions that school and education
were part of “culture,” only those who had such an
experience could and would want their children to
have the same experience. A participant who identified
himself as an educator emphasized the relationship
between parental education and timely school
enrollment:
3.4. Houseehold characteristics
3.4.1. Household incomes and expenses
Questions asked about the income and the
expenditures of the families show that these families
have very low income levels. In the late enrollment
group, 76,9% of the participants and in the unenrolled
group, 79,5% of the participants reported that they
spent 750 TL or less per month. Both in the late
enrollment and unenrollment groups, it was found
that monthly expenditures were more than monthly
income stated. In the late enrollment group, median
“Educational level of the people living in the
expenditure level was 545 TL, whereas median income
region is obvious. Findings of a research I
level was 399 TL. In the no enrollment group, median
conducted in my own district show that
expenditure level was reported to be 573 TL, whereas
number of illiterate men and women in my district median income was 422 TL.
is very high. We get students from these families.
What type efforts would a family fitting into
this description put into getting education for
its child? We have to spread the notion of
education to famlies.”
The importance of mothers’ and fathers’ education was
also emphasized during the semi-structured interviews
similar to the findings of quantitative research and
focus group meetings. When the participants were
asked to speculate on the reason for late school
enrollment, the most important reason stated by the
participants was that “families (legal guardians) were
unaware of the notion of how education was important
and there was social and cultural deprivation.” Without
a doubt, the fact that the majority of the participants
were not parents experiencing the problem should be
a factor for why such a finding emerged. This response
was given largely by MONE workers, local governors
and administrators. As stated by the participants,
families experiencing problems with “awareness for
70
education” is an important finding because this is a
view expressed by people who know the local people
more closely. Moreover, it is also important because
this is a view expressed by the people, most of whom,
interact with these families closely regarding enrolling
children in school on time.
Figure 19. Average monthly expenditure of households (TL) (%)
Figure 20. Total household monthly income (TL) (%)
Participants who reported higher levels of monthly
expenditure than income were asked how they were
making up the difference. Findings indicated that 51%
of the participants in the late enrollment group and
43.9% of the participants in no enrollment group were
getting loans. The remaingning people indicated that
their families, neighbors, municipalities, and other
governmental agencies and charities were helping
them.
71
Table 31. Ways to close income-expenditure gap *
Late enrollment
Borrowing money
Receiving a sum of money
at certain periods (harvest
time, seasonal work)
Extended family members
contribute
Neighbors contribute
Municipalities, government, charity organizations help
Getting loan from a bank
Total
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
338
51,0
43
43,9
381
50,1
122
18,4
36
36,7
158
20,8
138
20,8
12
12,2
150
19,7
48
7,2
3
3,1
51
6,7
12
1,8
4
4,1
16
2,1
5
663
0,8
100
98
100
5
761
0,7
100
** More than one answer was given.
3.4.2. Ownership status of the home the
families live in
Even though the income levels of the families were
low, 71,4% of the participants in the late enrollment
group, and 75,7% of the participants in the unenrolled
group owned the house they lived in. It was found that
those who rented their residences, which constituted
72
15,6% of the late enrollment group, and 11,8% of the
unenrolled group, paid very low levels of rent for their
homes. Even though rents were low, considering the
monthly income of these families were very low, the
amount they paid for the rent makes an important
portion of their monthly income. Average monthly rent
paid was around 170 TL (See Appendix Table 19).
Table 32. Ownership status of the home the families live in*
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Home owner
683
71,4
103
75,7
786
71,8
Renter
Belongs to a relative, no rent
paid
Housing unit
State property, no rent
paid
Total
149
15,6
16
11,8
165
15,1
117
12,2
16
11,8
133
12,2
7
0,7
-
-
7
0,6
1
0,1
1
0,7
2
0,2
957
100
136
100
1.094
100
3.4.3. The size of the home
Even though majority of the families were not paying
rent for their homes and it was somewhat of a financial
relief for these families not to deal with this, the
homes they lived in were usually small (See Appendix
Table 20 to review the sizes of the residences families
lived in). The average size of a home in the late
enrollment group was 91 meters square, and in the
unenrolled group, it was 92 meters square (Table 33).
Even though 90 meter square could give a comfortable
living space for a small family, considering the families
included in the sample were very large in size, these
homes were very small and did not give enough space
for living.
Table 33. Average size of the home
(When the residence was a house, garden, patio, etc. not included.)
Late Enrollment
785
Average
(m2)
91,37
No enrollment
92
92,06
33,07
20
200
Not enrolled on time (Total)
877
91,44
33,4
20
301
N
When the number of rooms in these homes was
examined, it was found that there were 2 or 3 rooms
on average. As expected, only 1,7% of the children in
Standard
Deviation
33,51
Minimum
Maximum
20
301
the late enrollment group, and 0,7% of the children in
the unenrolled group had their own rooms.
73
Table 34. Descriptive statistics for the number of rooms in the residence the
household member live in
(Bathroom, toilet not included)
Late Enrollment
938
Average
(no.of
rooms)
2,66
No enrollment
135
2,77
0,90
1
5
Not enrolling on time (Total)
1073
2,67
0,93
1
6
N
3.4.4. Social and economical factors
associated with not enrolling in
school on time
When the findings of the quantitative research were
examined, it was found that families of children who
did not enroll in school on time had very low income
levels, and were having serious financial difficulties,
particularly the ones with unenrolled children. When
the monthly incomes and expenditures of these
families were examined, it was found that to make up
the difference, families were getting either loans or
financial support from various sources. Even though in
both groups families were living in their own homes,
these homes were very small when the sizes of these
families are considered, and almost no child had a
room of his or her own. In summary, the families of
children who did not enroll in school on time were low
income families.
Parallel to the findings of the quantitative research, in
semi-structured interviews, participants emphasized
the importance of financial limitations, seasonal
work, the need for children to work and migration
as factors influencing children not to enroll in
school on time. As a function of these difficulties,
some participants stated, children were not sent
to school because of developmental problems they
were experiencing. It was further expressed that in
Eastern and South Eastern regions, financial and
social problems were deeply experienced at large and
many of the aforementioned problems were simply
larger in magnitude. Because it clearly represents how
families are negatively experienced by the social and
economical challenges experienced in these regions,
74
Standard
Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
0,93
1
6
it is important to take a note of what a parent who
participates from Van has to say:
”Children of our neighborhood go downtown and
become a seller of tissues, polishes shoes on
the streets at ages of 7 or 8 because of financial
challenges. Then the child comes to age 10 and
cannot even go to school at all after that time, is
denied enrollment. There is not one school built in our
neighborhood. They are all far. For example, I look at it,
in the mornings I take my child to school or if I am not
there his mother take the child to school or the child’s
school is really far away, I take him to school in the
car, but I am not home all the time. His mother is not
able to take him to school everyday, the school is far,
and I am not able to send him to school. I cannot send
him to school on his own, once he gets a little older,
when he gets to be eight, I think…”
Furthermore, children not being able to speak
Turkish at a sufficient level and families not sending
their children to school, or sending their children to
school late because of political factors were also
expressed by some participants as factors associated
with social and economical challenges people in
the region face. Moreover, safety issues because of
terrorism, children being scared, and illness/disability
were some of the other factors expressed by the
participants. Participants stated that these problems,
when experienced with economical challenges the
interaction effect becomes more and multiplied and
influences the lives of families worse. A principal
participating from province of Ağrı talks about
the difficulties experienced with Turkish language
acquisition;
“ The actual problem is even deeper. How do you
call a child? In your own language. Child does not
even know Turkish until he/she is 6 or 7, is not
even ready for school.”
It was also reported that children of families who
work in agriculture and livestock business often end
up helping their families during the busy seasons of
work, hence causing these children to start school
a few months late. This, accordingly was one of the
factors stated by the participants contributing to
children not enrolling in school on time. Participants
reported that even though this did not seem to them
as a factor directly influencing late school entry, it
illustrated family priorities. Some families sent their
children out to work, for example selling tissues on
the street, which was a factor contributing to children
not enrolling in school on time. It was discussed
that while this was a factor contributing to late
school entry, sometimes this was a factor influencing
children to be completely out of school. Some of
the social stakeholders participated in focus group
meetings emphasized that economical factors were
more influential on issues like missing school, school
drop-outs, and not continuing on with education
after primary school more so than not enrolling in
school on time. As a result, a principal from province
of Diyarbakır discussed how child labor is a serious
problem both in Diyarbakır and many regions of Turkey,
and shared his views as follows;
“We have seasonal workers in Diyarbakır,
children are working in the outskirts of the city.
The children of such families are automatically
not enrolled in schools. This is not only a problem
for Diyarbakır, it is a problem in many areas in
Turkey. There are children living in what we call
varoş [outskirts of a city, poor] and most of them
work in streets. Let me give you an example,
I researched that in my own school we have
3000 children, and 30-40% of them work in the
streets.”
In the focus group meetings, it was discussed that
one of the significant sources of income for many
families in the region was to migrate to somewhere
else during a season for a few months and work there.
In addition to this, another practice for some families
was to move to plateaus. Both practices cause these
families to leave where they live for some time during
the year, hence they are similar in this respect. In
focus group meetings, it was discussed that as a
function of this type of life style, when they finish their
work and return to where they live, many families
find that the school registrations are closed, and even
classes resumed. The main problem here was not
so much the closing of registration period, rather, it
was families not knowing their right to register their
school whenever they were able, and families not
being informed of this right. In fact, in Şanlıurfa, one
parent reported that because of poverty, they had to
engage in seasonal migrant work, and because of this
they had to enroll one of their children to school with
a year delay. This parent expressed the difficulties
experienced by them as a family and by their children
as follows:
”We had the child registered right at 7 years
of age. We did not send the child to school for
a period of time, we left for work. We went to
Yozgat to pick potatoes. I had to take the child
with me. We have to, if we had any other way,
we would not go. Your own home could not be
compared to staying in the field…Twice a year in
May and in July we go to Manisa to pick grapes.
When we come back from Manisa, schools are
already open and one whole month is gone by. I
have to send the child to school when we come
back home, I have no other choice. Everyone
learned how to read when they first started,
but this one [child] came late, cannot catch
up with all the school work. He gets very upset
when we are behind. [The child] says “I love my
teacher, I love my school, and I am going to go
[to school]. If I had a job here, if I have a place
where I can leave my child, then the child can go
to school. We do not have jobs, we are poor. We
have a house, we do not have anything else. They
[state]give assistance, they are giving it to the rich, to land owners. Where are the poor?
We do not get any assistance, scholarships or
educational support.”
Another problem associated with seasonal migrant
work and moving up to plateaus was that because
of the life style of these families, these families are
difficult to contact and their children are difficult
to be screened and identified. As a result of this,
monitoring and identifying these families are difficult
and the MONE officials do not really know about the
75
status of these children, thus unable to have any
intervention. Again in the province of Ağrı, a member
of an NGO discussed the difficulties with screening and
monitoring of such children and emphasized how all
the stakeholders need to work together to fight this
problem.
“This is a job for all…Healthcare providers should
also share the burden, they go everywhere. When
they meet with the families, while immunizing
school-age children, they can provide
information about the importance of education
to the families. This is not just a problem for
educators. Everyone has a responsibility.”
In focus group meetings, factors such as economic
deprivation, seasonal migration, families having
too many children and being uneducated were
all discussed as factors contributing both to late
school entry and no school enrollment. Specifically,
in these meetings, the lack of education of parents
was emphasized as one of the main reasons for why
children do not enroll in school on time.
3.5. General characteristics of
children who were born in
2001
3.5.1. School enrollment status of
children born in 2001
Of those children who were born in 2001, and were
eligible to attend school in 2007 – 2008 educational
year, 12,4% of them (n=136) were still unenrolled and
out of school two years after their eligibility to enroll in
school. The remaining 87,6% of the children (n=959)
had enrolled in school a year after their eligibility to
attend school even though they were not enrolled in
school on time.
Figure 21. School enrollment status of children born in 2001 who were not
enrolled in school on time (No enrollment on time, Base: 1095 people)
76
3.5.2. Sex of children who were not
enrolled to school on time
When we examine the sex distribution of children who
were not enrolled on time and included in the sample,
we found that there were differences between the
late enrollment and no enrollment groups. The late
enrollment group had more male children (51,5%),
while in the unenrolled group, there were more female
children (63,2%) (Figure 22).
This difference was statistically significant based
on the results obtained from chi square analysis,
[(χ2(1)=10.36, p<0.005)]. Even though in general the
educational levels were low for the entire population
of the provinces included in the study, findings show
that females are more seriously affected by this
problem than are males. More attention needs to be
paid to the fact that more female children were out of
school in the group that had been out of school two
years in a row.
Figure 22. Sex distribution of children who were not enrolled school on time (%)
3.5.3. Knowledge of the participant of the
actual age of the child
It was important to investigate how parents determine
their child’s age for school enrollment because one
of the most important goals of this study was to find
out the factors contributing to why children do not
enroll in school even though they are at the legal
age for primary school enrollment. Even though in
their official birth certificate the birth years of target
children included in the study were written as 2001,
the interviewees were asked one more time to state
the age the children had completed. According to the
birth year indicated in their birth certificate these
children were eight years old in 2009. However, in the
late enrollment group, 35,9% of the parents, and in
the unenrolled group, 41,9% of the parents, indicated
that their children were eight years old. The number
of parents who answered this question was 948. It is
surprising to note that, of those parents, 64% of them
in the late enrollment group and 56,6% of them in the
unenrolled group indicated that their children were
just now 7 years of age.
77
Figure 23. Age of the child based on the calculation of the participant (%)
Next, the parents were asked whether the actual date
of birth of these children was the same as the one
indicated on their birth certificate cards. It was found
that in the late enrollment group, 98,9% of the
children and in the unenrolled group, 94,9% of the
children had parental reports of their dates of birth
match with what is written on their birth certificate
cards.
Figure 24. Consistency between the actual and the recorded date of birth for
the child who did not enroll in school on time (%)
78
Those parents who reported a different date for the
child’s birth than the one written on children’s birth
certificate cards gave dates ranging from 1995 to
2003. Next, children’s average age was calculated for
both groups based on their age written on their birth
certificate cards. The results indicated that in late
cenrollment group the average age for children was
8.19 (SD=0.36), and in unenrolled group it was 8.27
(SD=0.32). The age difference between the two groups
was found to be statistically significant, (t(1090)=2.73 (p=<0.01)).
Table 35. Calculated age (based on participant reports) of the children whose ID
date of birth was 2001*
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
1995
-
-
2
1,5
2
0,2
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total
2
5
948
3
958
0.2
0,5
99,0
0,3
100
1
129
2
1
135
0,7
95,6
1,5
0,7
100
1
2
5
1.077
5
1
1.093
0,1
0,2
0,5
98,5
0,5
0,1
100
Whether the children’s birth dates match between
parental reports and what is written on their ID cards
was examined based on the province they lived in. The
results indicated that a birth date that was different
than what is written on the ID cards was not expressed
by parents living in the provinces of Ağrı, Bitlis,
Gümüşhane, Hakkâri, Osmaniye and Şırnak. Parents in
the remaining provinces, Van being the first one in the
list, Diyarbakır and Muş, respectively, reported dates
that were different than the one indicated on the birth
certificate cards. Regardless, the number of parents
reporting different dates for their children’s birth dates
was very low throughout.
When parents were asked why their children’s dates
of birth were not the same on their ID cards, the most
commonly reported reason was that the parents
registered the child late with the state registrar’s office
(n=10). Among the given reasons for why the two
dates did not match, some of them were that the older
sibling had passed away at the time the child was born
and they used the deceased child’s ID card (n=3), the
father decided that this was the appropriate thing to
do (n=2), not wanting to send the girl to school early
(n=1), and registrar’s error in recording the date of
birth of the child (n=1). Reasons outside of going to
the registrar’s office late differed between late school
entry and unenrolled groups.
Of those questions that were asked to determine the
knowledge and perceptions of the participants about
the age of the child, one that particularly brought
striking answers was the one that asked parents what
age their children had completed. Even though these
children were all born on the same year and their birth
dates on their ID cards match with parental reports,
the answers parents gave about their children’s ages
were quite varied. Even though there was no testing of
children to determine the actual ages, like a bone test,
and we cannot be sure that the parents were providing
correct ages for their children, it was important to
note that the actual ages matched with the ones on
79
Table 36. Distribution of those whose reports indicated a discrepancy between
the actual and the recorded age of the child by province they live in
Same
Late
enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Diyarbakır
Şanlıurfa
Van
Diyarbakır
Muş
Şanlıurfa
Van
Diyarbakır
Muş
Şanlıurfa
Van
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
185
219
154
98,9
97,3
98,1
2
6
3
1,1
2,7
1,9
187
225
157
100
100
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
12
12
41
47
92,3
92,3
97,6
92,2
1
1
1
4
7.7
7.7
2.4
7.8
13
13
42
51
100
100
100
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
197
72
260
201
98,5
98,6
97,4
96,6
3
1
7
7
1,5
1,4
2,6
3,4
200
73
267
208
100
100
100
100
the ID cards. One of the most common reasons for
the dates not matching was that parents had gone
to the registrar’s office late to register their child in
citizenship/census bureau (See Appendix Table 21).
As it was already discussed, parents have a legal right
to postpone their children’s primary school enrollment
for a year as stated in Article 15. Because it is a
question of concern to decide when to enroll children
in school if they were born later than September,
which is when the academic year officially begins in
Turkey, children’s ages were also examined based on
the month they were born. Results show that in the
late enrollment group 291 (30,4%) of the children and
in the unenrolled group, 30 children (22,1%) was born
either in October or later.
3.5.4. Not enrolling in school on time,
child’s age and being unenrolled
Quantitative findings revealed that most of the parents
were legally married, all the children had a citizen’s
80
Different
state ID, and most of the birth dates on these IDs
matched with what the parents reported the children’s
actual birth dates were. Despite these findings, it was
also found that parents were calculating the children’s
ages differently, and most of them were reporting that
their children were younger than their actual ages. As
a result, parents’ calculations of children’s ages seem
to be a factor contributing to children not enrolling in
school on time.
In focus group meetings, children’s ages, whether
the parents were legally married, and the household
structure and functioning, seem to bring up very
interesting discussions.
Participants discussed that parents being legally
married, children being registered at the citizenship
bureau, and even mother being registered with
the citizenship bureau were all factors influencing
children’s timely school enrollment. It was discussed
that families without legal marriage certificates did
not register their children with the state citizenship
bureau, and waited until they get a legal marriage
certificate to register their children. As a result,
children, particularly girls, were registered late with
the state. Participants further discussed that some
children were actually at high school age, but when
you looked at their state ID cards, it was showing that
these children were at the age of elementary school.
Moreover, parents were sometimes coming to primary
schools to enroll their children in schools at those
ages.
Table 37. Birth months as indicated in the birth certificate record of children who
were born in 2001*
Late enrollment
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
134
58
68
62
72
64
55
74
80
110
92
89
958
14
6,1
7,1
6,5
7,5
6,7
5,7
7,7
8,4
11,5
9,6
9,3
100
29
8
11
10
11
8
11
12
6
13
9
8
136
21,3
5,9
8,1
7,4
8,1
5,9
8,1
8,8
4,4
9,6
6,6
5,9
100
163
66
79
72
83
72
66
86
86
123
101
97
1.094
14,9
6
7,2
6,6
7,6
6,6
6
7,9
7,9
11,2
9,2
8,9
100
Another problem that was discussed was that when
the mothers were not registered with the state, and
did not have birth certificate cards, they were not able
to have legal marriage certificates and sometimes their
children were registered under another woman’s name.
As a result, according to focus group discussants,
the families were not thinking about the issue on
enrolling children in school on time. Furthermore,
some participants reported that the problem was
more than just not enrolling children on time; they
believed that such families did not even think about
enrolling children in school because of not having the
awareness or the recognition of such a responsibility.
Even though quantitative findings did not show similar
results, it is possible that some children who do not
enroll in schools on time might possibly be affected
by such conditions as the participants of focus group
meetings claimed.
In focus group meetings, using state birth certificate
cards of deceased children for younger children was
also discussed as another practice engaged in by
some families. Instead of recording the death of the
older child and getting a new birth certificate card
for the newborn, some families were simply using
the birth certificate card that they already had for
various reasons, including not being able to go and
complete the paperwork necessary to obtain a new
birth certificate due to limited Turkish. Thus, even
though the families were actually taking the child
at the accurate age when the child was completing
72 months of age, because the birth certificate card
belonged to the deceased older sibling, the child was
treated as an older child who enrolled in school late.
81
3.6. General health of children who
were born in 2001
One of the very important factors influencing children’s
timely enrollment in school is the physical health of
children. Premature birth, disability, chronic illnesses,
and developmental delay are all among the factors
that negatively influence children’s enrollment in
school on time. As a result, families were asked to
report on the child’s health status when born, and if
there was a health problem then the parents were
asked to report the type of the problem, how long the
problem lasted and whether the problem currently
affects the child’s well being.
Based on the information parents reported, it was
found that the children in the unenrolled group had
experienced more problems than children in the late
school entry group, (χ2(1)=4.48, p<0.05).
Figure 25. Health of children when they were born (%)
Only during infancy, then
it was resolved/cured
Findings indicated that 12.2% of the children in the
late school entry group had various health problems
or developmental challenges while it was 19.1% of the
children in the unenrolled group. This means, the ratio
of children with a disability or illness were more in the
unenrolled group than it was in the late enrollment
group.
Parents who reported that their children had some
problems at birth were asked to describe these
problems. The most common response provided in the
late enrollment group was developmental problems
(31.5%), followed by seizures (8.7%) and problems
with the eyes (5.5%). In the unenrolled group,
seizures, physical disability, and speech problems
82
were reported at similar rates (11.1%) by parents (See
Appendix Table 22).
Even though problems experienced at birth could have
the potential to affect children’s health during school
years and their school experiences, if the problem
was resolved during infancy or early childhood
period, the result would be different. Because of this,
parents were asked to report whether these health or
developmental problems continued into school years.
Parents’ responses showed that a significant number
of children in both the late enrollment group (67.5%)
and the unenrolled group (76.9%) continued to have
these problems throughout their childhood.
Table 38. Whether their health problems or consequences of their health
problems had lasting effects
(This question was asked to those who indicated that the child had some health problems when born)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
The child experienced
some health problems
throughout childhood
79
67,5
20
76,9
99
69,2
The child experienced
health problems during
infancy, then they were
gone after that period
38
32,5
6
23,1
44
30,8
Total
117
100
26
100
143
100
Parents who reported that their children’s problems
at birth continued throughout their childhood years
were asked to report on these problems (n=97).
Results revealed that the most common problems
were developmental problems, but these children
had a range of health problems. Examination of these
problems showed that 19 of them had developmental
problems, 8 of them had breathing problems, 11
had problems with their eyes, and 6 of them were
extremely low weight at birth. Other problems that
were reported by fewer parents were heart problems,
swelling of the bones in the arms and the feet, hearing
impairments, physical disability, speech problems,
bronchitis, perceptual problems and epilepsy.
Figure 26. Whether the child had an illness or disability that would prevent the
child from enrolling in school on time (%)
83
Table 39. How much does the health issue when the child was born influence
life quality of the child*
(This question was asked to those who indicated that the child had some health
problems when born.)
Late enrollment
Base: 116 People
No enrollment
Base: 26 People
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Long-term; Does not effect school or daily life but
prevents participating in social activities
that require effort
59
46,5
6
22,2
Long-term; Does not affect life quality but requires
regular medical checks
19
15
1
3,7
Long-term; Requires receiving assistance for
hygiene and living needs
14
11
4
14,8
Conditions that affect one through 3 months
12
9,4
6
22,2
Long-term; Conditions that require receiving assistance to
get education and daily activities
8
6,3
8
29,6
Conditions that affect between one month and
up to three months
Conditions, temporary, yet affecting more
than 3 months
Conditions that would have no influence
Total
8
6,3
3
2,4
2
7,4
4
127
3,1
100
27
100
When the parents reported children’s problems, it was
observed that there was a range of problems. Because
of this, these responses were grouped thematically
and examined again. A medical doctor who specialized
in pediatrics was consulted for this grouping.
The main criterion used was to assess how these
problems affected the life quality of the children. As
a result, with this type of qualification, the goal was
to understand whether the problem the child was
experiencing was preventing the child from enrolling in
or attending school. We sought to determine whether
the child’s condition would have the potential to affect
decisions for school enrollment. It is important to note
that we were unaware of the fact that these children
were not assessed by medical doctors for the current
research and the magnitude of the problem might
84
be different from what parents reported. Despite this
limitation, this qualification gives an idea about the
effects of the problems children were experiencing.
As can be found in Table 39, most of the problems
listed by the parents had the potential to be easily
controlled and not be problematic for the lives of
these children with care and support services provided
for them.
3.6.1. Health status of children based on
the provinces they live in
The presence of childhood problems present at
birth was examined based on the province in which
children lived. Both in the late enrollment (38,1%)
and unenrolled (33,3%) groups, a greater percentage
Table 40. Effects of the child’s health problem lasting since birth on child’s life*
(This question was asked to those indicated the child had a some health problems
that lasted throughout childhood.)
Late enrollment
Base: 77 People
No enrollment
Base: 20 People
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Long-term; Does not effect school or daily life
but prevents participating in social activities that
require effort
43
51,8
5
23,8
Long-term; Does not affect life quality but
requires regular medical checks
19
22,9
-
-
Long-term; Requires receiving assistance for hygiene
and living needs
11
13,3
7
33,3
3
3,6
7
33,3
Long-term; Conditions that require receiving
assistance to get education and daily activities
Condition that affect between one week and one
month
Conditions, temporary, yet affecting more than 3
months
Total
2
2,4
1
4,8
3
3,6
-
-
1
1,2
1
4,8
1
83
1,2
100
21
100
of parents in Bitlis reported having children with
problems at birth. None of the parents in Hakkâri
who were in the late enrollment group, and none
of the parents in Hakkâri and Ağrı in the unenrolled
group reported children having any problems at birth.
Statistical examination of these differences among
provinces revealed significant differences both for
the late enrollment, (X2 (9)=41.32, p<0.001) and
unenrolled (X2(9)=38.45, p<0.001) groups.
The majority of the parents reported that their
children did not have any illness or disability that
would prevent them from attending school. Parents
reported that in the no enrollment group, 21,3%
of the children and in the late enrollment group,
10,8%, of the children had a problem that prevented
school enrollment. Based on these findings, in the
provinces that were included in the study, 12±2.7 %
of the population was predicted to have an illness or
a disability that would prevent them from attending
school.
Again, those parents who indicated that their
children actually did have an illness or a disability
that prevented them from enrolling in school,
were asked to specify the problems their children
were experiencing. Similar to the parental reports
of birth problems, 9,6% of these problems were
developmental. This problem was followed by other
health issues and physical disability (See Appendix
Table 23).
The responses of the parents who indicated that
their children did have a problem that prevented
their children from attending school were grouped
85
Table 41. Health status of children when born based on the province (%)
Everything was
normal
(general health, and
development like height
and weight)
Late
Enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
86
Had some
problems
Total
Province
AĞRI
Frequency
105
%
89
Frequency
13
%
11
Frequency
118
%
100
BİTLİS
26
61,9
16
38,1
42
100
DİYARBAKIR
163
87,2
24
12,8
187
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
13
86,7
2
13,3
15
100
HAKKARİ
27
100
0
0
27
100
MUŞ
52
86,7
8
13,3
60
100
OSMANİYE
47
82,5
10
17,5
57
100
ŞANLIURFA
206
91,6
19
8,4
225
100
ŞIRNAK
57
80,3
14
19,7
71
100
VAN
145
92,4
12
7,6
157
100
AĞRI
3
100
0
0
3
100
BİTLİS
2
66,7
1
33,3
3
100
DİYARBAKIR
9
69,2
4
30,8
13
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
-
0
-
0
-
0
HAKKARİ
3
100
0
0
3
100
MUŞ
9
69,2
4
30,8
13
100
OSMANİYE
6
85,7
1
14,3
7
100
ŞANLIURFA
31
73,8
11
26,2
42
100
ŞIRNAK
1
100
0
0
1
100
VAN
46
90,2
5
9,8
51
100
AĞRI
108
89,3
13
10,7
121
100
BİTLİS
28
62,2
17
37,8
45
100
DİYARBAKIR
172
86
28
14
200
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
13
86,7
2
13,3
15
100
HAKKARİ
30
100
0
0
30
100
MUŞ
61
83,6
12
16,4
73
100
OSMANİYE
53
82,8
11
17,2
64
100
ŞANLIURFA
237
88,8
30
11,2
267
100
ŞIRNAK
58
80,6
14
19,4
72
100
VAN
191
91,8
17
8,2
208
100
thematically based on whether these problems would
have the potential to affect children’s life quality.
Findings revealed that most of these problems would
not necessarily prevent these children from attending
school; rather, these children would require additional
care, but would still be able to attend school.
In order to better understand the illnesses or
disabilities of these children, parents were asked for
how long these children were facing these problems.
In the late enrollment group 55% (n=91) of the
children and in the unenrolled group 67,8% (n=28)
of the children had these problems since infancy and
toddlerhood. More specifically, in the late enrollment
group, children experienced problems for an average
of 59 months, and in the unenrolled group, children
experienced these problems for 69 months.
Table 42. Effects of the child’s illness/special need on his/her life*
(This question was asked to those indicated the child had an illness/special need
that prevented him/her from going to school.)
Late enrollment
Base: 96 People
No enrollment
Base: 26 People
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Long-term; Does not effect school or daily life but
prevents participating in social activities that require
effort
31
31,6
8
28,6
Long-term; Does not affect life quality but requires
regular medical checks
33
33,7
2
7,1
Long-term; Requires receiving assistance for hygiene
and living needs
9
9.2
9
32,1
11
11,2
5
5,1
5
17,9
5
5,1
2
7,1
2
2
2
7,1
2
98
2
100
28
100
Long-term; Conditions that require receiving
assistance to get education and daily activities
Conditions that affect between one week and one
month
Conditions, temporary, yet affecting more than 3
months
Total
87
Table 43. Length of illness/disability*
Late enrollment
Less than a year
More than a year and 2
years
More than 2 years and 3
years
years
years
years
years
7 years and above
Total
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
10
11,0
1
3,6
11
9,2
9
9,9
2
7,1
11
9,2
15
16,5
3
10,7
18
15,1
3
3,3
1
3,6
4
3,4
4
4,4
2
7,1
6
5,0
8
8,8
2
7,1
10
8,4
20
22,0
11
39,3
31
26,1
22
24,2
6
21,4
28
23,5
91
100
28
100
119
100
3.6.2. Not enrolling in school on time and
child’s development
Quantitative research findings indicated that there
was a significant relationship between the parental
concerns about children’s development and not
enrolling children in school on time. A considerable
number of parents, especially in the late school entry
group, had not sent their children to school at the
age of 6 because they thought their children were too
young to go to school and they would be overwhelmed.
They wanted to keep their children from school for a
year in order for their children to grow and mature.
In addition to this, especially in the group with
unenrolled children, illnesses, developmental problems
and disability were factors influencing late school
enrollment.
Similar to the quantitative research findings, focus
group meetings also revealed that some families
send their children school late so that their children
88
can grow and mature more. According to the results
of focus group discussions, some families make this
decision in order for their children to mature enough
to protect themselves from assaults. Parents reported
that the assaults could be either physical or sexual,
but regardless, if the children matured they would
be better able to defend and protect themselves.
One parent from Diyarbakır argued that it was very
important for the child to be able to engage in self
defense and it was why he had his child enroll in
school late. His words below clearly show that he was
determined to do this for his other children in the
future.
”I had my child enroll in the first grade of
primary school at the age of 8. I wanted my
child to be the dominant, bigger and the
stronger of the classroom so that nobody would
take advantage of the child, the child can defend
herself. I have another daughter, I want to have
her enroll in school at the age of 8 as well.”
In focus group meetings, discussants emphasized that
families had a habit of distinguishing children based
on whether they think the children were smart or
not. Discussants argued that such a distinction made
among children resulted in distinguishing children who
can succeed in school, and should go to school, and
who cannot succeed, and thus should not go to school.
According to the participants of focus group meetings,
children who were thought unable to finish school and
not able to succeed, were either enrolled in schools
late or denied school enrollment altogether by their
families. The problem of only sending to school those
children who were perceived to be smart was argued
to be a more noticeable problem among families who
had too many children and those who had limited
financial resources. Added to this by the discussants
was another problem, that was parents being
uneducated, not knowing birth control methods and
having children more than they can actually support.
Another point that was concluded in focus group
meetings was that some children were chronologically
at the age to enroll in school but they were perceived
to be not physically or cognitively mature enough
to attend school, thus their enrollment in school
was late. Discussants argued that the delays or
retardations in their growths were a result of
malnutrition or inadequate and imbalanced diet.
Focus group participants discussed that children with
disabilities were also facing similar consequences and
their enrollments in school were also late. Discussants
seemed to agree that having disabilities was a
significant challenge everywhere in Turkey and those
disabilities were always a contributing factor to late
school enrollment.
3.6.3. Families’ knowledge of children’s
height and weight
It is already discussed that families’ perceptions
of children’s physical development, particularly
perceptions that children are small and weak for
their ages, are contributing to children’s late school
enrollment. In order to explore the issue in depth, and
determine how the children were developing, families
were asked to report on the heights and weights of
their children after the families were asked about
whether the children had any disabilities. Interestingly,
88,8% of the parents in the late enrollment group and
89,7% in the unenrolled group reported that they did
not know their children’s height.
Figure 27. Knowledge of children’s height and weight* (%)
89
Growth charts are developed for children from many
different ethnic and racial backgrounds. An eight-year
old Turkish child who is 120 cm tall is within the 10th
percentile for height, while a nine-year old would
be within the 3rd percentile. This was similar both
for boys and girls (Neyzi et al., 2006). Of those who
answered the question 77,6% (n=107) of parents in
the late enrollment (n=107) group and 57.1% (n=14)
of the parents in the unenrolled (n=14) group reported
their children’s heights were 120 cm or below.
When parental reports of average height for these
children were examined, it was found that in the late
enrollment group, the average height reported was
110,33 cm (SD=14.90) and in the unenrolled group
the average height was 116,93 cm (SD=24.47). Even
though these numbers indicate that these children
were shorter than the average height for their ages,
their reported heights suggest that parents’ reports
are most likely inaccurate. It was unclear whether
the reported heights were too short because these
children were too short or the parents made wrong
inaccurate guesses (Even if the reported answers of
these families were wrong, these findings are still
important in terms of showing what type of knowledge
these families have of the development of their
children).
Figure 28. Height of children who did not enroll primary school on time (meter)(%)
Parental reports of children’s heights were examined
separately both for the late enrollment and unenrolled
groups (See Table 44). Results show that in the late
enrollment group there was not a lot of difference
between male and female children in terms of
parental reports of children’s heights (girls=109.4 cm;
boys=111 cm). Even though in the group of unenrolled
children there were very few parents who could state
90
what they think their children’s heights were, there
seemed to be a great difference for the average
heights of boys and girls (girls=130.6 cm; boys= 109.3
cm). Children’s heights as reported by their parents
based on their birth years are shown in Appendix Table
24.
Table 44. Descriptive statistics for parental reports of children’s heights that did
not enroll in school on time by child sex
Late
Enrollment
No enrollment
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Not enrolling on time Male
Total
N
Average
Minimum
Maximum
45
109,40
65
136
62
111,00
75
145
107
110,33
65
145
N
Average
Minimum
Maximum
5
130,60
100
175
9
109,33
70
125
14
116,93
70
175
N
Average
Minimum
Maximum
50
111,52
65
175
71
110,79
70
145
121
111,09
65
175
Similarly, when the children’s weight was asked,
both in late school entry group (80,8%) and in no
enrollment group (88,2%), parents reported that they
did not know their children’s weight. When the families
were asked to report on their children’s weights, in
the late enrollment group, 56% of the parents and in
the unenrolled group, 43,8% of the parents reported
that their children were 24kg and under (See Appendix
Table 25). When these numbers were examined based
on the growth norms for Turkish children, children
at or less than 24 kg would be in 25th percentile at
age 8 and in the 10th percentile at age 9. Of those
children whose parents could report a weight for
them, 34,2% of them in the late enrollment group
and 37,5% of them in the unenrolled group were at
the 50th percentile of of growth for 8 year olds and,
these same children would be at the 25th percentile of
growth for 9 year olds (Neyzi et al., 2006). Similar to
Figure 29. Knowledge the target children’s weight
91
parental reports on children’s heights, parental reports
of children’s weights are also thought provoking
because these numbers and averages seem to be way
below norms developed for normal growth. Even if
these numbers were not accurate and these children
were not as low as they were reported both for height
and weight, these findings are still important in terms
of showing how these families were unaware of such
basic information about children’s growth.
Table 45. Descriptive statistics for children’s weight
(This question was asked to those who indicated they knew the child’s weight.)
N
Average
Standard
Deviation
Minimum
Maksimum
Late enrollment
No enrollment
184
16
23,58
24,88
3,76
8,08
15
15
40
50
Not enrolling in school on time (Total)
200
23,68
4,25
15
50
Figure 30. Weight of children who did not enroll primary schools on time (kg)(%)
92
3.7. Knowledge of the school
enrollment time
3.7.1. Participants’ knowledge of the
expected time for school
enrollment
Previously we discussed that parents had different
ideas about how to calculate the current age of their
child. In other words, a child who was born in the year
2001 could be perceived to be 7 or 8 or even 9 for
some families in the year 2009. Just like how families’
perceptions of their child’s age is influential in the
decision to enroll their child in school, knowledge
families have for school enrollment age can also
be influential. According to the Ministry of National
Education, a child can enroll in school at 72 months
of age. When families were asked what the age for
school enrollment was, 74,35% of the families in
the late enrollment group and 85% in the unenrolled
group reported that children had to complete 7
years (84 months) of age to start school. Both in
the late enrollment group and also in the unenrolled
group 20,1% and 10,5% of the families, respectively,
indicated that the age for school enrollment was 6
years of age. It is important to note that 5% of the
families thought the age of school enrollment was 8
years (96 months) of age.
Figure 31. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment (%)
Parents’ knowledge of school enrollment age for
children was examined based on the province they
lived in and the findings revealed that both in the
late enrollment group, (63,4%) and in the unenrolled
group (33,3%) indicating that age of 6 was the age
for school enrollment was highest in Bitlis. Indicating
that age for school enrollment was 7 was highest in
Hakkâri with 100% of the parents giving this answer.
93
Table 46. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by province
Late enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
94
6
Age
7
8
Province
AĞRI
%
10,3
%
88
%
1.7
Frequency
117
Total %
100
BİTLİS
63,4
36,6
-
41
100
DİYARBAKIR
24,5
75
0.5
184
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
40
60
-
15
100
HAKKARİ
-
100
-
27
100
MUŞ
25,4
71,2
3,4
59
100
OSMANİYE
25
73,2
1,8
56
100
ŞANLIURFA
18,4
80,2
1,4
217
100
ŞIRNAK
2,8
39,4
57,7
71
100
VAN
19,1
79
1,9
157
100
AĞRI
%
-
%
100
%
-
Frequency
3
Total
100
BİTLİS
33,3
66,7
-
3
100
DİYARBAKIR
8,3
91,7
-
12
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
-
-
-
-
-
HAKKARİ
-
100
-
3
100
MUŞ
23,1
69,2
7,7
13
100
OSMANİYE
-
85,7
14,3
7
100
ŞANLIURFA
9,8
85,4
4,9
41
100
ŞIRNAK
-
-
100
1
100
VAN
AĞRI
10
%
10
88
%
88,3
2
%
1.7
50
Frequency
120
100
Total
100
BİTLİS
61,4
38,6
-
44
100
DİYARBAKIR
23,5
76
0.5
196
100
GÜMÜŞHANE
40
60
-
15
100
HAKKARİ
-
100
-
30
100
MUŞ
25
70,8
4,2
72
100
OSMANİYE
22,2
74,6
3,2
63
100
ŞANLIURFA
17,1
81
1,9
258
100
ŞIRNAK
2,8
38,9
58,3
72
100
VAN
16,9
81,2
1,9
207
100
Total
3.7.2. Relationship between selected
characteristics of the participants
and their knowledge of legal age
for school enrollment
Participant responses about school enrollment age
were re-examined based on the sex of the parent.
The relationship between maternal age and mothers’
reports of their knowledge of school enrollment for
school was also examined. Findings showed that
the majority of mothers who thought the school
enrollment age were 7 (82%) and those who thought
school enrollment age was 6 (76%), were mothers
with no education in the late education group. In
the no enrollment group, 100% of the mothers who
reported that school enrollment were 6, and 90,2% of
the mothers who reported school enrollment age was
7 were mothers with no education.
Table 47. Mothers’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by level of education
(When participants were mothers)
6
Late enrollment
Has no schooling
Primary/First
through eight grade
graduate
Graduate of high
school or higher
No enrollment
8
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
143
75,7
562
81,3
52
100
39
20,6
123
17,8
-
-
7
3,7
6
0,9
-
-
189
100
691
100
52
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
12
100
99
89,2
5
83,3
Primary/First through
eight grade graduate
-
-
12
10,8
1
16,7
Graduate of high
school or higher
12
100
111
100
6
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Has no schooling
155
76,4
660
82,3
57
96,6
40
19,7
135
16,8
2
3,4
Graduate of high
school or higher
8
3,9
7
0,9
-
-
203
100
802
100
59
100
Has no schooling
No enrollment
Age
7
95
Fathers with different educational levels were
compared in terms of their knowledge of school
enrollment age. As seen in Table 48, in the late school
entry group, most of the parents who indicated that
age 6 (51,9%) was the age for school enrollment and
those who indicated that age for school enrollment
was 7 (52,1%) were fathers with primary school
education in the no enrollment group, most of the
fathers who reported that they believed the age for
school enrollment was 6 were graduates of at least
high schools (50%), and those who reported 7 years of
age as for the age for school enrollment were fathers
(40,7%) who had no formal schooling degrees. Chi
Square statistics indicated that these differences
among fathers based on their educational levels were
statistically significant, (χ2(4)=54.22, p<0.001).
Table 48. Fathers’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by level of education
(When participants were fathers)
A
g
e
6
Late enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Has no schooling
65
35,5
297
43,5
42
85,7
Primary/First
through eight
grade graduate
95
51,9
356
52,1
6
12,2
23
12,6
30
4,4
1
2,0
183
100
683
100
49
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Has no schooling
Primary/First
through eight
grade graduate
Graduate of high
school and higher
5
35,7
62
57,4
2
33,3
7
50,0
44
40,7
3
50,0
2
14,3
2
1,9
1
16,7
Total
14
100
108
100
6
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
70
35,5
359
45,4
44
80,0
102
51,8
399
50,4
9
16,4
25
12,7
33
4,2
2
3,6
197
100
791
100
55
100
Has no schooling
Primary/First
through eight
grade graduate
Graduate of high
school and higher
Total
96
8
Frequency
Graduate of high
school and higher
Total
No enrollment
7
Having social security, at least a “green card,” which
provides free medical care at state hospitals for
families with very low income, is very important for
the children because it shows whether the children
are registered with the state and also shows the
socio-economical backgrounds of families. For this
reason, the knowledge of accurate age for school
enrollment the participants had been examined based
on the type of social security/insurance they had. In
the late enrollment group, 77% of those who reported
not having any social security and in the unenrolled
group over 81% of those who had no social security
reported that the legal age for school enrollment
was 7. Of those who had social security (SGK), 65%
of them in the late enrollment group and 70% in the
unenrolled group also reported that the age to start
school was 7. For those who had a green card*, the
findings were not very different, revealing that in the
late enrollment group 76% of the participants and in
the unenrolled group, 87% of the participants reported
that the age to start school for children was 7. Despite
what social security the families had, the majority
of the participants still believed that the age to start
school was 7.
Table 49. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by having
social security/insurance
No social security/
insurance
Late enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Green Card/Free medical
care at state hospitals
provided by the state*
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
17
16,5
53
32,3
120
17,8
7
79
76,7
107
65,2
513
76,0
8
7
6,8
4
2,4
42
6,2
103
100
164
100
675
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
2
12,5
2
20,0
10
9,3
7
13
81,3
7
70,0
93
86,9
8
1
6,3
1
10,0
4
3,7
Total
16
100
10
100
107
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
19
16,0
55
31,6
130
16,6
7
92
77,3
114
65,5
606
77,5
8
8
6,7
5
2,9
46
5,9
119
100
174
100
782
100
Total
No enrollment
Social Security
SGK
Total
*Green card. Free medical care provided by the state to those in need.
97
In the late enrollment group however, the responses
of participants based on the type of social security
they had were significantly different, (X2(4)=20.39,
p<0.001). Parental answers about at what age children
should start school were examined based on whether
they lived in rural or urban areas. The results indicated
that in the late enrollment group, 76,9% of the
respondents who lived in urban living areas and 72,4%
of those who lived in rural areas, and in the unenrolled
group 77,8% of those who lived in the rural areas and
93,4% of those who lived in urban areas indicated
that the age to start school was 7 years. Both for the
late enrollment group, (X2(2)=7.13, p<.05), and for
the unenrolled group, (X2(2)=8.92, p<.05), urban-rural
differences were statistically significant as revealed
by chi-square analysis. Knowledge of correct school
enrollment age was higher in both groups among
those who lived in urban living areas. Moreover,
correct school enrollment age was reported more by
participants in the late enrollment group than in the
group of unenrolled children.
In another disaggregated graph (See Figure 32),
having knowledge of Article 15 included in the
Primary Schools Regulations of Ministry of National
Education, and the reports of people’s knowledge of
the school enrollment age were compared for the late
enrollment group. The majority of parents (74%) who
had knowledge of Article 15 reported that the school
enrollment age for a child was age 6. Only 3,6% of
the people who reported not being aware of Article 15
stated they believed the school enrolment age was 6.
Interestingly, of those who claimed to have knowledge
of Article 15, 25,8% stated that the school enrollment
age was 7. Not surprisingly, the majority of the people,
89,1%, who reported having knowledge of Article 15
reported that they believed the school enrollment age
were 7. This difference was statistically significant,
(X2(2)=518.121, p<0.001). As a result, it can be
argued that having knowledge of the related rules and
regulations of MONE is one of the important predictors
of having accurate information and knowledge about
the school enrollment age. It is important to note
that relatively few parents had knowledge of Article
15 (n=221) compared to those who did not know
(n=718).
Figure 32. Knowledge of MONE, Department of Primary Education Bylaws Article 15
and Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment in late enrollment
group (%)
98
3.7.3. Not enrolling in school on time and
enrollment age for school
Findings indicated that families experience a
significant degree of confusion concerning time for
school enrollment. The majority of families included in
the sample stated that the age for school enrollment
was 7 not 6. Even though the difference was small,
mothers and fathers with low educational levels and
people living in rural areas had a higher probability
of using the wrong age. In addition to this, having
knowledge of MONE regulations was a factor that
positively influenced having an accurate knowledge of
the age for school enrollment.
Examination of the findings from semi-structured
interviews revealed that when participants were
asked whether the people living where they live and
work knew the accurate age for school enrollment,
72,3% indicated that they believed the parents knew
this information. In other words, most participants
in the interviews assumed that parents knew the
legal age for school enrollment. Participants also
reported that the parents in rural living areas had
little knowledge about the age for school enrollment.
Participants who reported that parents did not know
the age for school enrollment reported that parents
had a lot of confusion about calculating a child’s age,
and they also incorrectly thought the age for school
enrollment was seven. It was also reported that
rather than looking at their children’s chronological
age, parents paid attention to their children’s level of
physical development to decide to enroll their children
in school. When the responses given were examined
based on who the participants were, it was found that
those who believed parents knew the accurate age for
school enrollment were mostly principals of schools,
primary school teachers and inspectors. Those who
believed that the parents did not know the accurate
information were mainly local administrators. In
addition, when this question was asked to parents
who took part in the interviews, they also reported
that they believed parents knew the accurate age for
school enrollment. When the participants were asked
how they knew whether parents knew the accurate
age for school enrollment, 61% reported that they
base their responses on their own observations.
Those who reported that their observations and
experiences lead them to think this way were mainly
district directorates of national education, principals
of schools, local media representatives, mukhtars and
representatives from NGOs. While some reported that
they had this view based on their guesses, others,
mainly teachers, principals, inspectors and district
directors of national education reported that they base
their opinions on screening work. Moreover, one of
the teachers reported that as educators they inform
parents of this information and a religious employee
reported that he put announcements in the mosque.
Of those who reported that the accurate age for school
enrollment was not known by parents, 83,3% thought
this was influencing children not enrolling in school on
time. The majority of those with such beliefs were local
administrators. Even though there were not that many,
others were vice principals, teachers, inspectors, and
local media and NGO representatives.
99
Table 50. Participants’ knowledge of legal age for school enrollment by living in
urban or rural areas
Rural living areas
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling in
school on time
(Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
78
19,8
112
20,4
7
303
76,9
398
72,4
8
13
3,3
40
7,3
Total
394
100
550
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
2
3,3
12
16,7
7
57
93,4
56
77,8
8
2
3,3
4
5,6
Total
61
100
72
100
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
6
80
17,6
124
19,9
7
360
79,1
454
73,0
8
15
3,3
44
7,1
Total
455
100
622
100
3.7.4. How the information about the age
for school enrollment is obtained
Participating parents were asked to report where they
received the information about the expected age for
school enrollment. Although their answers indicated
more than one source for where they received the
information, it is interesting to note that both in the
late enrollment group (27,2%), and in the unenrolled
group (32,4%) the source that was reported as a
source for the information for the expected age for
school enrollment was school. The other sources
100
Urban living areas
reported were family elders, relatives, and neighbors,.
Principals of schools, religious officials, spouses and
other students were almost never used as resources
for obtaining the expected age for school enrollment.
Table 51. How the information about the age for school enrollment is obtained*
(More details in Appendix Table 26)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
From school
385
27,2
61
32,4
446
27,8
Family Elders
309
21,8
54
28,7
363
22,6
Relatives
312
22,0
36
19,1
348
21,7
Neighbors
235
16,6
17
9,0
252
15,7
Friends
109
7,7
10
5,3
119
7,4
Media (Radio, television,
newspaper, etc.)
32
2,3
5
2,7
37
2,3
Mukhtars
15
1,1
2
1,1
17
1,1
Other
21
1,5
3
1,6
24
1,5
Total
1.418
100
188
100
1.606
100
3.7.5. Participant responses about
whether they thought their
children were enrolled in school on
time or not
In the late enrollment group, parents were asked to
indicate whether they believed their children had
enrolled in school on time, and it was found that
65,7% of the parents had reported their children were
actually enrolled on time, with the remaining 34,3%
reporting that they did not think they had enrolled
their children in schools late. Examination of whether
the parents think their children enrolled in school
on time based on the province in the late enrollment
group revealed significant differences among the
provinces, (χ2(9)=125.09, p<0.001). Findings indicated
that even though the majority of the parents in
Hakkâri (96,3%) and Muş (91,7%) sent their children
to school with a year delay, they believed that they
had sent their children on time. Parents who believed
that they did not send their children to school on time
in the late enrollment group were more common in the
provinces of Bitlis (%73,8) and Şırnak (%53,5). When
the participant reports were examined based on their
educational level, it was found that 64,4% of parents
with no education, 69,6% of parents with primary
school education, and 61,8% of parents with high
school education believed they sent their children to
school on time.
The views of participants on whether they believed
their children were enrolled in school on time were
also examined based on whether they lived in rural or
urban areas. Results showed that the percentage of
parents who believed their children were enrolled in
school on time was similar between parents living in
rural areas, %69.2, and urban areas, %63.3.
In the provinces included in the research, 23,6±4,1 %
of the participants indicated that they knew Article 15
in the MONE primary schools regulations.
When the participant responses were examined based
on whether they were familiar with Article 15,44.2%
of the participants who indicated that they knew
Article 15 and 72,4% of the participants who did not,
thought their children had enrolled in school on time,
(χ2(1)=60.51, p<0.001). Findings revealed that in the
late enrollment group, those who knew of Article 15
were more aware of the problem of late school entry.
101
Figure 33. Participant responses about whether they thought their children were
enrolled in school on time or not (Late enrollment, Base: 954 people)
Article 15 and 72,4% of the participants who did
not,thought their children had enrolled in school
on time,[x2(1)=60.51, p<0.001]. Findings revealed
that in the late enrollment group, those who knew
of Article15 were more aware of the problem of
late school entry.
Table 52. Whether the participants thought the child was enrolled in school on
time based on the province they lived in (Late enrollment)
Yes, I think so
Province
102
No, I do not think so
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Ağrı
60
51,3
57
48,7
117
100
Bitlis
11
26,2
31
73,8
42
100
Diyarbakır
99
53,2
87
46,8
186
100
Gümüşhane
6
40,0
9
60,0
15
100
Hakkâri
26
96,3
1
3,7
27
100
Muş
55
91,7
5
8,3
60
100
Osmaniye
46
80,7
11
19,3
57
100
Şanlıurfa
168
75,0
56
25,0
224
100
Şırnak
33
46,5
38
53,5
71
100
Van
123
79,4
32
20,6
155
100
Table 53. Participants’ educational levels and their views on whether they
believed their children had enrolled in school on time (Late enrollment)
Yes, I believe the
enrollment was done on
time
No, I don’t believe the
enrollment was done on
time
Total
Graduate of high
school or higher
Has no schooling
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
425
64,4
179
69,6
21
61,8
235
35,6
78
30,4
13
38,2
660
100
257
100
34
100
Table 54. Participant responses on whether they believe their children had enrolled in
school on time based on whether they live in urban or rural areas (Late enrollment)
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Yes, I think so
274
69.2
353
63.3
No, I don’t think so
122
30.8
205
36.7
Total
396
100
558
100
Table 55. Knowledge of article 15 of MONE regulations for primary schools and whether
they believed their children had enrolled in school on time (Late enrollment)
I don’t know
I know
Yes, I believe enrollment was done on
time
No, I don’t believe the enrollment was
done on time
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
99
44,2
525
72,4
125
55,8
200
27,6
224
100
725
100
103
3.8. Reasons for not enrolling in
school on time
3.8.1. Reasons for late enrollment
The majority of the participants (n=843) who did
not have their children enroll in school the previous
year, but had them enrolled in school in 2008-2009
educational year, indicated reasons other than health
and disability. Even though responses given by this
group varied considerably, the most frequently
mentioned reasons for late enrollment were the
physical readiness of children and financial difficulties.
Thinking that children were too young to go to school
the previous year, in when the child was legally
eligible to enroll in school, was the most commonly
indicated reason for late school entry. This answer
constituted 37,8% of all the answers and, 31,8% of
all the participants gave this answer. Parents listed,
respectively, having financial difficulties the previous
year (27,8%), school administration denying school
enrollment by claiming these children were too
young for school (16,3%), thinking that child will be
oppressed due to being physically frail (9,7%), child
not wanting to go to school (%5,7), school being too
far away (%3,2) and school administration thinking
the child was too frail and weak (%3,2) as reasons
for not having their children enroll in school the
previous year. Even though mothers and fathers listed
generally more than one reason, the above reasons
make up of 87,3% of all the reasons reported. It was
found that of the remaining reasons, 6% were factors
associated with family beliefs and 8% were related to
factors associated with limited structural or physical
opportunities. Parents with children who enrolled in
schools late and were reported to have a disability or
illness (n:104) were asked to report the reasons for
not enrolling their children in school on time. When
their answers were examined, having a child fall ill
often the previous year, or having an illness that
104
was ongoing was reported by 42,3% of the parents
as reasons for not enrolling their children in school
the previous year. Reasons other than illness and
related to other factors such as their mistaken beliefs
about the appropriate age for school enrollment,
physical and environmental factors and financial
difficulties constituted answers of 60% of the parents
who indicated that their children had an illness or a
disability. The reasons for delaying school entry for
children who had a disability or illness can be found in
Table 57.
By looking at how many months old the children were
at the time school started, the reasons for delaying
school entry for these children were examined.
Findings showed that during the 2008 – 2009 school
year, only 84 children (24,5%) were not sent to school
because they were younger than 72 months of age. Of
those children, 228 of them (66,5%) were 72 months
old or older. Even more interestingly, when school
administration claimed that the children were too
young to enter school and denied school enrollment
for these children, only 41 of them (28,1%) were
younger than 72 months, and 105 of these children
(71,9%) were 72 months old or older. Even though
concerns about the development of these children
were influencing families’ decisions to allow for school
enrollment, findings of this research clearly indicates
that state determined legal age for school entry did
not match up with what families perceived the school
enrollment age should be for their children. As a
result, it was found that perceptions of parents about
child’s age being too young were more influential than
the actual age of the child for parental decisions to
enroll children in school.
Table 56. Reasons for late enrollment*
(More information can be found in Appendix Table 27) (Late enrollment, Base: 843 people)**
This table includes the answers of those who indicated earlier that the child did not have any disability or
illness that prevents the child form attending school.
We thought the child was too young to enroll in school last year
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in
school last year
School administration said the child was too young and did not
register the child
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail, we
felt the child would be the downtrodden one
Child did not want to attend school the previous year
Could not send the child to school because the school was too far
away
School administration said the child was too small/frail and did
not register the child
Teachers did not take the child because the classrooms were
overcrowded
We had the child registered to school last year, but could not
continue for various reasons
Last year, transportation opportunities to school were very limited
Last year the school administration said that the child was too
small and weak and told us to enroll the child in kindergarten
We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work as seasonal
workers
We could not enroll the child in school because the child did not
have a state birth certificate (registration)
Other
Total
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents***
319
31,8
37,8
234
23,4
27,8
137
13,7
16,3
82
8,2
9,7
48
4,8
5,7
27
2,7
3,2
27
2,7
3,2
12
1,2
1,4
12
1,2
1,4
11
1,1
1,3
11
1,1
1,3
10
1
1,2
10
1
1,2
62
1002
6,2
100
7,0
118,9
* This question was asked as an open ended question with no answer choices provided.
** People who did not answer this question were not included in the table
*** More than one answer was given.
105
Table 57. The reasons for late enrollment of the child with illness or disability*
(More information can be found in Appendix Table 28.) (Late enrollment, Base: 104 people)**
This table includes the answers of those who indicated earlier that the child had a disability or illness that prevents the child form
attending school.
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents***
44
24
31,9
17,4
42,3
23,1
22
15,9
21,2
12
8,7
11,5
9
6,5
8,7
4
2,9
3,8
4
2,9
3,8
3
2,2
2,9
3
2,2
2,9
3
2,2
2,9
3
2,2
2,9
2
1,4
1,9
5
3,5
5,0
138
100
132,7
Child was either sick last year or was getting sick too often
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the
child in school last year
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail,
we felt the child would be the downtrodden one
School administration said the child was too young and did
School administration said the child was too small/weak
and did not register the child
I completed the child’s enrollment in school, but child could
not continue because of disability
Could not send the child to school because the school was
too far away
Teachers did not take the child because the classrooms
were overcrowded
The teacher did not accept the child to school because of
the child’s illness
We sent the child to kindergarten so that the child would
grow and mature
We had the child registered to school last year, but could
not continue for various reasons
Other
Total
* This question was asked as an open ended question with no answer choices provided.
** People who did not answer this question were not included in the table
*** More than one answer was given.
106
Table 58. The reasons for late enrollment of the child based on how old the child
was at the time of school enrollment (%) (Late enrollment)
Younger than 72
months
of age
Base: 254
People
72 months
of age
Base: 133
People
Older than
72 months of
age*
Base: 749
People
33,1
23
30,4
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in
school last year
School administration said the child was too young and did not
register the child
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail, we
felt the child would be the downtrodden one
21,3
23
22,8
16,1
14
11,5
4,7
8,3
9,3
5,1
3
4,1
3,5
4,5
3,9
4,7
6
1,5
2,4
1,5
2,9
0,4
2,3
1,5
School administration said the child was too small/weak and did
away
Teachers did not take the child because the classrooms were
overcrowded
We had the child registered to school last year, but could not
continue for various reasons
Last year school administration did not register the child to
school saying the child was too small and weak, and referred us
to kindergarten
We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work as seasonal
workers
We could not enroll the child in school because the child did not
have a state birth certificate (registration)
Other
Total
0,8
1,6
1,2
1,5
0,8
1,2
1,5
0,8
0
2,3
0,9
0,4
1,2
5,1
11
6,7
100
100
100
107
“Children being too young”, “being physically
underdeveloped” were among the most common
factors that were reported by families as reasons
to send their children to school late. As a result, the
first question that comes to mind is to determine
whether these schools parents avoided had early
childhood education classrooms which seem to be
less demanding and help children mature and be ready
for the demands of primary schools. Of these schools,
data for 940 of them were obtained. Contrary to what
could be expected, (79,6%) of these school had some
sort of early childhood education available within the
premises1. On the other hand, when the findings about
the reasons for delaying school entry for children
were examined based on whether there was early
childhood education at these schools, results did not
change much (See Table 59). In other words, 31%
of those parents who had early childhood education
available at the school their child was supposed to
enroll, and 26,8% of those parents who did not have
early childhood education available still reported that
their “child was too young” to attend school as an
explanation for why their children attended school
late. Meanwhile, one important issue that needs to
be taken into consideration is that we do not have
any data about the quality and the educational
opportunities of these early childhood education
classrooms and how many children are accepted.
Perhaps the finding that (11,6%), of the school
administrations that had early childhood education
available at their schools denied enrollment of these
children to their schools claiming that these children
were too young to attend school could be an indicator
that they had limited opportunities for early childhood
education.
Figure 34. Whether there is early childhood education in the primary school the late school
enrollment children are attending (Late enrollment Base: 940 people)
* Data of 19 children couldn’t be obtained.
1
108
e-shool 2008 data; MONE
Table 59. The reasons for late school enrollment based on whether there is early childhood education in the
primary school the late school enrollment children are attending (Late enrollment)
There is early
childhood education
There is no early
childhood education
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
We thought the child was too young to enroll in
school last year
278
31
60
26,8
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll
the child in school last year
207
23,1
46
20,5
104
11,6
40
17,9
83
9,2
9
4
35
3,9
12
5,4
35
3,9
8
3,6
21
2,3
10
4,5
25
2,8
5
2,2
8
0,9
7
3,1
9
1
5
2,2
11
1,2
-
-
11
1,2
-
-
9
1
1
0,4
9
1
1
0,4
53
5,9
20
8,9
898
100
224
100
School administration said the child was too young
and did not register the child
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age
and frail, we felt the child would be the downtrodden
one
Child was either sick last year or was getting sick too
often
School administration said the child was too small/
weak and did not register the child
Could not send the child to school because the school
was too far away
Teachers did not take the child because the classrooms were overcrowded
We had the child registered to school last year, but
could not continue for various reasons
Last year, transportation opportunities to school were
very limited
Last year the school administration said that the
child was too small and weak and told us to enroll
the child in kindergarten
We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work
as seasonal workers
We could not enroll the child in school because
the child did not have a state birth certificate
(registration)
Other
Total
109
3.8.2. Factor analysis examining the
reasons for late school
enrollment
As was seen with the other questions about late
school enrollment, it was found that the answers
provided by the participating parents varied.
Therefore, it was important to identify the general
themes of these varying answers. In order to be able
to accomplish this Factor Analysis was implemented.
Especially because there was a sufficient number of
participants in the study, theoretical justification was
accomplished for implementation of factor analysis
for the late enrollment group. Moreover, in order to
determine whether the data set was suitable for
factor analysis Bartlett and Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin
(KMO) tests were conducted and their findings were
examined.
Table 60. Results of KMO and Bartlett Tests
Test for Adequacy of the number of participants (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin)
0.908
Frequency
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
The findings of the Barlett test were statistically
significant, indicating that there were sufficient
numbers of statistically significant correlations among
the variables that were not examined due to large
numbers of variables in the correlation matrix. Bartlett
test is an important analysis to determine whether the
dataset is suitable for factor analysis and the findings
support implementation of this test. As seen in Table
60, KMO was 90,8%, and because 0,91>0,50 and other
factors support this, it was concluded that the dataset
was suitable for factor analysis.
Common variance for the variables (Communality)
was examined and those variables that had lower
variances were dropped from the analysis (those
that were under .50). These variables included the
following statements: “Child was either sick last year
or was getting sick too often” and “Last year there
was no school where we lived.” In addition, “In order
for her brother to attend school first, we did not send
110
%
Chi Square
9912.735
Degrees of Freedom
253
Statistical significance (p).
0.000
our daughter to school” was only asked to those
with daughters, and was therefore excluded from the
analysis. There were five factors identified that had
Eigenvalues greater than the first factor explained
24,210% of the total variance, both first and second
combined explained 36.276%, three factors combined
explained 45,714%, and four factors combined
explained 54,199% of the total variance. When all of
them were combined, it was found that all five factors
together explained 62,610% of the total variance.
When the variables that loaded on each of the factors
were examined, it was found that each of these
components were creating a theoretically meaningful
factor and were different from the components of the
other factors. As a result, as it can be found in Table
62, based on the items loaded in each of the factors,
five different labels were created to identify each of
these factors.
111
0.530
We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work as seasonal workers
Variance explained
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail, we felt the child would be the downtrodden one
We thought the child would develop better and be more successful in school if we waited another year
The child had to work and earn money last year
Last year the child needed to help at home with the housework (washing, cleaning, looking after younger siblings, etc.)
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in school last year
Last year the child was supposed to help with the work in the field / garden
Last year there were security problems at the school
Last year there were security problems in the road to school
0.866
0.817
0.615
3
4
0.632
0.629
0.573
0.550
Components
5
0.813
0.774
0.604
24.210 12.066 9.438 8.485 8.411
0.547
0.593
We wanted him/her to go to school with the one year younger sibling
The child did not want to separate from the mother last year
0.615
Last year the child was not toilet trained
0.818
0.678
We did not want the teacher that was assigned last year
Child was afraid of going to school last year
0.709
We had just moved here last year, so we were unable to register the child to school
0.818
0.758
Last year, around the time school started, a family member fell ill
0.810
Last year, a family member passed away around the time school started
0.861
0.821
Last year, the child had to take care of somebody sick in the household
2
Child was uninterested in school last year
0.846
1
One of the close friends of the child passed away right around the time the schools started
Table 61. Rotated factor matrix
Table 62. Factor labels
Factor 1
Social and environmental factors
Factor 2
Child’s interest and willingness to go to school
Factor 3
The transportation of the child to school
Factor 4
Financial difficulties of the family
Factor 5
Child’s growth and development
As a result of the factor analysis, the number of the
variables associated with late school enrollment was
dropped to five. For each of these factors, a total point
score was calculated and various statistical analysis
were conducted to indentify the relationships between
these factors and several other independent variables.
In order to indentify group differences for variables
with two response categories an independent t-test
analysis was conducted. When there were more than
two response categories, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted. When the findings indicate significant
group differences for variables with more than two
levels, results of post hoc analysis were examined to
identify the sources of these differences. These post
hoc analysis were determined based on whether or not
the variances were homogeneous.
Independent t test analysis were conducted to
compare whether living in urban and rural areas made
a difference in terms of what issues participants
provided were the reasons for late school enrollment.
Findings indicate group differences for Factor 1
(Social and environmental factors), Factor2 (Child’s
interest and willingness to go to school), Factor 3
(The transportation of the child to school), Factor
4 (Financial difficulties of the family) and Factor 5
(Child’s growth and development). As a result when
the mean scores of these factors were compared for
participants living in urban and rural areas, it was
found that social and environmental factors were
more influential for participants living in urban areas,
(M=10.97; SD=3.31) than participants living in rural
areas, (M=10.55; SD=2.78), (t(946)=-2.077, p<0.05).
Child’s interest and willingness to go to school
was more influential in rural living areas (M=6.84;
112
SD=3.11), than urban living areas (M=6.13; SD=2.73),
as a factor contributing to children not enrolling in
school on time, (t(941)=3.73,p<0.001). Another
factor that showed a difference between rural and
urban living areas was the transportation of the child
to school, (t(950)=2,93,p<0.005). Results indicated
that a child’s transportation to school was more
influential in urban living areas (M=8.56; SD=3.11),
than rural living areas (M=7,73; SD=3,14).
In order to examine the factors that explained why
children’s school enrollment was late in different
provinces a series of ANOVAs was conducted for each
of the five factors. Next, because there were more
than two provinces, post hoc analysis were conducted
to compare provinces. Provinces differed in terms of
how “social and environmental factors” influenced
the decisions to delay children’s enrollment in school,
(F(9,938)=16.22;p<0.001). Table 64 summarizes the
post hoc findings of how provinces differed.
Another analysis examined whether there was a
difference between provinces in listing that “Child’s
interest and willingness to go to school,” was a
factor explaining child’s late school enrollment
(F(9,933)=33,68,p<0.001).
The next ANOVA analysis was conducted to determine
how “the transportation of the child to school” was
indicated as a reason for late school enrollment
for different provinces, and the results indicated
significant differences among the provinces included in
the study, (F(9,942)=46.952;p<0.001).
Table 63. Descriptive statistics for Factor 1 based on provinces
Provinces
Average
Standard
Deviation
95%
Confidence
Interval
Maximum
Minimum
Ağrı
9,52
0,17
9,17
9,86
9
21
Bitlis
16,15
0,41
15,32
16,98
9
24
Diyarbakır
9,20
0,06
9,08
9,33
9
15
Gümüşhane
11,40
1,06
9,12
13,68
9
18
Hakkâri
10,22
0,25
9,70
10,74
9
13
Muş
9,19
0,10
9,00
9,38
9
13
Osmaniye
9,81
0,28
9,25
10,36
9
18
Şanlıurfa
12,43
0,26
11,91
12,95
9
23
Şırnak
9,69
0,25
9,19
10,18
9
18
Van
11,46
0,23
11,00
11,92
9
24
General
10,80
0,10
10,60
11,00
9
24
Van
Şırnak
Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye
Muş
Hakkâri
Gümüşhane
Diyarbakır
Bitlis
Provinces
Ağrı
Table 64. Post Hoc results for Factor 1 based on provinces
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
: Statistically significant findings representing the provinces listed in rows have greater average scores than the ones in columns (p<0,05)
: Statistically significant findings representing the provinces listed in rows have smaller average scores than the ones in columns (p<0,05)
: Represents the average scores of the provinces are not significantly different (p<0,05)
113
Table 65. Descriptive statistics for Factor 2 based on provinces
95%
Confidence Interval Minimum Maximum
Average
Standard
Deviation
Ağrı
4,72
0,14
4,43
5,00
4
12
Bitlis
7,78
0,25
7,28
8,28
4
12
Diyarbakır
5,83
0,22
5,39
6,27
4
18
Gümüşhane
5,07
0,47
4,05
6,08
4
8
Hakkâri
7,27
0,57
6,10
8,44
4
12
Muş
4,48
0,26
3,95
5,01
4
16
Osmaniye
5,02
0,22
4,58
5,46
4
12
Şanlıurfa
7,74
0,17
7,39
8,08
4
17
Şırnak
4,62
0,19
4,24
5,01
4
14
Van
8,22
0,27
7,69
8,74
4
16
General
6,42
0,09
6,24
6,61
4
18
Provinces
Van
Şırnak
Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye
Muş
Hakkâri
Gümüşhane
Diyarbakır
Bitlis
Provinces
Ağrı
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
114
Table 67. Descriptive statistics for Factor 3 for different provinces
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
Ağrı
3,42
0,13
3,16
3,68
3
10
Bitlis
7,52
0,47
6,57
8,47
3
15
Diyarbakır
3,53
0,11
3,32
3,75
3
10
Gümüşhane
4,07
0,41
3,19
4,94
3
7
Hakkâri
3,93
0,18
3,56
4,29
3
5
Muş
3,43
0,14
3,16
3,71
3
7
Osmaniye
5,63
0,41
4,80
6,46
3
15
Şanlıurfa
5,67
0,12
5,43
5,90
3
11
Şırnak
3,23
0,09
3,06
3,41
3
6
Van
4,39
0,13
4,14
4,64
3
12
General
4,45
0,07
4,32
4,58
3
15
Provinces
Minimum Maximum
Van
Şırnak
Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye
Muş
Hakkâri
Gümüşhane
Diyarbakır
Bitlis
Provinces
Ağrı
Table 68. Post Hoc results for Factor 3 for different provinces
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
115
Provinces also differed in terms of how they perceived “financial difficulties of the family” as a factor contributing
to late school entry, (F(9,939)=59.31, p<0.001).
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
Ağrı
6,75
0,18
6,41
7,10
4
15
Bitlis
10,10
0,20
9,69
10,50
7
14
Diyarbakır
7,13
0,10
6,93
7,33
4
13
Gümüşhane
6,33
0,54
5,17
7,49
4
11
Hakkâri
5,52
0,23
5,05
5,99
4
9
Muş
6,22
0,19
5,84
6,60
4
8
Osmaniye
6,86
0,33
6,20
7,51
4
12
Şanlıurfa
9,48
0,15
9,18
9,79
4
16
Şırnak
8,23
0,17
7,90
8,56
4
14
Van
6,40
0,11
6,18
6,63
4
11
General
7,60
0,07
7,46
7,74
4
16
Province
Minimum Maximum
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
116
Van
Şırnak
Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye
Muş
Hakkâri
Gümüşhane
Diyarbakır
Bitlis
Province
Ağrı
Table 70. Post Hoc results for Factor 4 for different provinces
Lastly, provinces were also compared in terms of how much the participants in each of these provinces perceived
“family concerns about child’s growth and development” as factors influencing late school. entry.
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
8,61
9,17
6,56
8,87
0,24
0,42
0,22
0,82
8,13
8,32
6,13
7,10
9,10
10,01
6,98
10,63
3
3
3
3
14
12
15
13
Hakkâri
7,96
0,36
7,21
8,71
3
11
Muş
7,20
0,45
6,30
8,11
3
15
Osmaniye
11,04
0,32
10,39
11,68
4
15
Şanlıurfa
10,02
0,17
9,69
10,35
3
15
Şırnak
4,77
0,32
4,14
5,41
3
13
Van
7,90
0,20
7,51
8,30
3
14
General
8,22
0,10
8,02
8,42
3
15
Province
Minimum Maximum
Van
Şırnak
Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye
Muş
Hakkâri
Gümüşhane
Diyarbakır
Bitlis
Province
Ağrı
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
117
Findings indicated statistically significant differences
among the provinces, F(9,936)=41.27, p<0.001.
Because fathers are more influential when decisions
about children’s schooling are made, the reasons
families gave for the late enrollment of their children
to schools were examined based on paternal
educational levels. No relationship between fathers’
educational level and social and environmental factors
associated with late school enrollment was found,
F(2,915)=0.327,p>0.05.
ANOVA results indicated that “child’s interest and
willingness to go to school” as a factor influencing late
school enrollment as a function of fathers’ educational
level was significant, F(2,910)=3.24, p<0.05. Findings
indicate that fathers with different levels of education
rated factors about child’s interest and willingness to
go to school as factors influencing late school entry.
Fathers who are primary school graduates found
these factors more influential and fathers who did not
graduate from any formal school.
Table 73. Descriptive statistics for Factor 2 for fathers with different educational levels
Has no schooling
Primary/First through eight grade
graduate
Graduate of high school or higher
General
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
6,20
0,15
5,91
6,48
4
18
6,66
0,14
6,39
6,92
4
16
6,00
0,33
5,34
6,66
4
14
6,42
0,10
6,23
6,60
4
18
Findings showed that fathers’ educational levels
made a difference for whether transportation to
school was seen as a factor influencing late school
entry, F(2,919)=3.581 p<0.05. The average scores of
the participants with fathers of different educational
levels were examined with post hoc analysis. Findings
Minimum Maximum
indicated that when fathers had no education the
participants indicated transportation issues to be
more influential in delaying children’s school entry
than participants with primary school education
(including 1st through 8th).
Table 74. Descriptive Statistics for Factor 3 for fathers with different educational levels
Has no schooling
graduate
General
118
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
4,28
0,09
4,09
4,46
3
15
4,64
0,10
4,44
4,83
3
15
4,28
0,30
3,68
4,87
3
15
4,46
0,07
4,33
4,59
3
15
Minimum Maximum
Table 75. Post Hoc results for Factor 2 for fathers with different educational levels
Primary school
Has no schooling graduate (includes
1st through 8th)
Graduate of high
school or higher
Has no schooling
Primary/First through eight grade graduate
: Statistically significant findings representing rows have greater average scores than the ones in columns (p<0,05)t
Financial difficulties of the family was also given as a
factor influencing late school entry as a function of
fathers’ educational levels, F(2,916)=4.95,p<0.05.
When fathers were high school graduates financial
difficulties were given as factors for late school entry
less often than when fathers had no formal education
degrees.
Has no schooling
graduate
General
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
7,81
0,11
7,59
8,03
4
16
7,51
0,10
7,30
7,71
4
15
6,89
0,30
6,29
7,48
4
12
7,60
0,07
7,46
7,75
4
16
Minimum Maximum
Primary school
1st through 8th)
Graduate of high
school or higher
Has no schooling
: Statistically significant findings representing rows have greater average scores than the ones in columns (p<0,05)
119
Lastly, paternal education as a factor influencing
how much child’s growth and development is given
as a factor influencing late school enrollment was
examined and findings revealed a statistically
significant differences for fathers with different
F(2,915)=11.82, p<0.001. Children with fathers who
had primary and higher educational levels were more
likely than fathers with no schooling to delay school
entry due to their children’s growth and development.
Has no schooling
graduate
General
95%
Confidence Interval
Average
Standard
Deviation
7,68
0,16
7,37
7,99
3
15
8,59
0,14
8,32
8,87
3
15
9,11
0,45
8,22
10,01
3
14
8,22
0,10
8,02
8,42
3
15
Minimum Maximum
Primary school
1st through 8th)
Graduate of high
school or higher
Has no schooling
: Statistically significant findings representing rows have greater average scores than the ones in columns (p<0,05)
120
Table 80. The reasons for the children not enrolling in school*
(More information can be found in Appendix Table 29) (No enrollment, Base: 106 people)
This Table includes the answers of those who indicated their children did not have any illness/
special need that prevents the child from attending school.
Because our financial situation was not good
49
% of
Responses
40,2
Because the school was too far
Because the child did not want to
21
11
17,2
9
19,8
10,4
Because the child was too young
9
7,4
8,5
Because the child did not develop properly
6
4,9
5,7
Because we were seasonal migrant workers
Because we missed the registration period
School administration did not register the child saying that
the child was too young
Because we could not pay the registration fee
Other
Total
5
4
4,1
3,3
4,7
3,8
3
2,5
2,8
2
2
122
1,6
1,6
100
1,9
1,9
115,1
Frequency
% of
Respondents**
46,2
3.8.3. Reasons for no school enrollment
in the 2007 – 2008 academic year
The examination of factors contributing to no school
enrollment in the 2007 and 2008 academic year of
children who were also born in 2001 but were not
enrolled to school two years in a row could not be
completed using factor analysis because of not having
enough units for each variable. Instead, responses
were grouped thematically under meaningful groups
and labeled accordingly to have fever variables to
examine. A total score for each of the combined
factors was obtained by adding the scores of each
of the statements included. The scores ranged from
1 to 5. Similar to the examination of the factors in
the late enrollment group, in the unenrolled group,
the variables examined in relation to why children
were not enrolled in school included: living in urban
versus rural areas, province, and fathers’ educational
level. The group differences for these variables were
tested using appropriate statistics. However, due to
insufficient number of participants for the variables
examined to conduct analysis, statistical analysis for
the provinces were not reported.
Families of unenrolled children who were reported to
not have any illness or disability that would prevent
them from attending school (n=106) were asked to
report the reasons for not enrolling their children in
school even though their children had passed the
school enrollment age. Examination of the parental
responses revealed that 46,2% of the parents had
reported financial limitation as a reason, 19,8%
reported that the school was too far, 10,4% reported
that the child did not want to go to school and 8,5%
reported that the child was too young to go to school.
It was interesting that in this group, parents would
report child not wanting to attend school as a factor
for children’s unenrollment. Other reasons reported
were that the child was underdeveloped (5,7%), they
were seasonal migrant workers (4,7%) and they had
missed the registration period for school enrollment
(3,8%). All the aforementioned reasons constituted
86,1% of all the responses. The remaining 9% of
the reasons were related to various beliefs, with 5%
related to physical and environmental limitations and
difficulties.
121
Parents of unenrolled children who reported their
children had a disability or an illness that prevented
their children from attending school (n:28) were asked
to state the reasons for not enrolling their children in
school. Of these parents, only 42,8% of them
reported that their children’s disability or illness was
reason for not enrolling their children in schools. Of
the responses, 29,4% were related to structural and
environmental limitations.
Table 81. Reasons for not enrolling in school for those who had a disability or an illness
(No enrollment, Base: 28 people)
This table includes the answers of those who indicated their children had an illness/special need
that prevented the child from attending school
We could not send the child because of the child’s illness
We could not send the child because of the child’s disability
12
12
% of
Responses
35,3
35,3
Because our financial situation was not good
Because the child was too young
We could not send the child because the child had some
vision/eye problems
We could not send the child because the child had some
behavior problems
Because the child did not want to
We could not send the child because the school did not
accept the child due to the child’s illness
Total
4
2
11,8
5,9
14,3
7,1
1
2,9
3,6
1
2,9
3,6
1
2,9
3,6
1
2,9
3,6
34
100
121,4
Frequency
% of
Respondents**
42,9
42,9
When the findings of the quantitative analysis were
examined, it was found that families had perceived
their children to be small and weak and had not sent
them to school for this reason. Interestingly, when
the children’s ages were calculated based on their
ages on their state identification cards, even children
who were at or above 72 months of age at the time
of school enrollment were not sent to school for this
reason. Even though waiting for children to develop
was also reported in the unenrolled group as a reason,
main reasons reported by parents for not enrolling
their children in school within this group were illness,
disability, and limited financial opportunities as well
as structural factors like difficulties experienced with
having access to schools. In addition, factor analysis
was conducted to explore the reasons for not enrolling
children in schools, and five major categories including
social an environmental factors, child’s interest and
122
willingness to go to school, access to school, financial
difficulties and concerns for children’s development
were identified.
3.8.4. Late enrollment in school and
social, cultural, economic,
environmental, and family-related
factors
In semi-structured interviews, when participants were
asked whether any children who should have enrolled
in school during the 2007-2008 academic year failed
to do so, 41% of them said there were such children.
As a result of their closer interest in the subject, those
who serve under the Ministry of National Education
such as teachers, principals, inspectors, and parents
reported that that they come across this situation
relatively frequently. It was observed that when asked
if this problem was present in their environment,
participants did not converge on the same judgment.
It is thought that whether the participants perceive
the situation as a problem or not may causally explain
this divergence in their judgments. A striking example
of this is that, as stated earlier, when the subject
of enrollment in school is brought up, the prevalent
thought is that the most fundamental problem in the
region is the failure to ever enroll in school.
A remarkable point that emerged from both focus
group meetings and semi-structured interviews are
the research participants’ difficulty in concentrating
on the basic topic of the research, timely enrollment.
Nearly every participant stated that the region has
many problems relating to education, and that as
far as enrollment goes, the problem was not one
about timely enrollment but of never enrolling. When
participants were asked directly whether they were
aware of late enrollments, 80% of the participants
in the semi-structured interviews were aware.
However, it is a cause for concern that nearly half of
stakeholders who are closer to the people and who
have great means of communication with the people,
such as mukhtars (heads of local village governments)
and local media representatives, have reported that
they are not aware of a late enrollment problem.
The participants who said they were aware of the
problem offered a variety of causes of the problem.
Often topics that have not been already brought up
or analyzed were mentioned, and causes such as
rural – urban living differences, economic problems,
gender discrimination, and developmental problems
in children were cited. The distribution of factors that
influence the child’s timely enrollment according
to the qualitative research was generally similar to
the sets that emerged from the factor analysis data
that were among the quantitative research analysis
methods.
Factors that influence timely enrollment according
to existing literature were brought up with the
participants under specific titles, and the influence
of these factors on timely enrollment was more
systematically investigated. When, with that in mind,
the effects of the cultural characteristics of the region
on this problem were examined, 80% of the responses
given by the participants emphasized that the cultural
characteristics of the region are influential. When
cultural influences were examined, principal factors
mentioned were awareness levels of the family,
gender discrimination (relative disregard for girls),
the inability of girls to go to school while wearing
a headscarf, and the dominance of a feudal social
structure. On the other hand, province and district
administrative of the MONE and education-related
representatives of various CSOs and local media have
stated that, unlike in the past, religious faith has the
effect of encouraging school attendance. It is observed
that participants gave similar responses, and that a
large portion of parents and mukhtars and one third
of local leaders stated that the problem does not
rest on cultural reasons alone. In other words, it was
determined that parents and mukhtars, i.e. people
who experience this problem with their own children
or with people in their own town, and people who
in some sense face parents in the context of this
problem have different views on the degree to which
cultural factors were effective in bringing about the
problem. It was observed that MONE employees such
as inspectors, school principals, and teachers gave
explanations citing as causes families’ life style and
faith, whereas parents expressed that the problem had
causes other than their faith that it rather stemmed
from economic factors.
When participants were asked which social factors
influence not enrolling on time, causes such as
mistrust in education, high number of children, waiting
for a younger sibling to become school-age, and terror
events were listed. Some participants also stated that
there are those who, because of their religious beliefs,
do not want to keep girls in school for eight years, and
that social factors lead to never enrolling more than
late enrollment.
Eighty percent of the participants stated that
economic factors constitute an important problem
in late enrollments. Families’ not giving priority to
children’s education and not being concerned enough
about education due to their economic hardship, or
their being unable to give priority to education even
though they had wanted to, and children employed
in various jobs (herder, cultivation, housework
for girls) in order to supply extra income for their
families were given as the main reasons. Also, some
participants emphasized that the financial supports
123
given by MONE and other various institutions are
important but insufficient. The fact that both in terms
of education and as regards financial development
the provinces in the region are among Turkey’s least
developed coincides with these responses. Among the
participants, parents, mukhtars, local administrators,
and members of local media economic factors were
seen as the leading cause of late school enrollment.
When the participants were asked which
environmental factors influence not enrolling on time,
that the schools are distant, and that because of
this commuter education is offered as an alternative,
and security problems on the roads were specified
as the main reasons. Although commuter education
is viewed by MONE as a solution to a big problem,
due to troubles in application it plays an important
role in the problem of late enrollment. Delaying
enrollment by at least one year to wait for children
to develop more so they can better withstand the
troubles that are brought about by traveling long
distance, reluctance to place children, especially girls,
in crowded school buses, or not wanting to send girls
on their own to primary education boarding schools
(PEBS), which is the alternative to commuting, and
waiting for a younger sibling to become school-age,
were important factors stated as direct results of
commuter education. Almost all the participants have
voiced similar thoughts. Furthermore, it was noted
that even MONE authorities and employees, while on
the one hand stating that commuter education and
PEBS solved various problems, were on the other hand
mentioning a series of problems caused by these two
structures.
When participants were asked which institutional
factors were influential in not enrolling on time it was
stated that MONE authorities did not fulfill their duties
to disseminate information accurately and sufficiently.
Although there is a group of MONE employees who
deny the existence of this problem, it was determined
that those who admit its existence are greater in
number. It was also indicated that preschool education
opportunities were insufficient, even non-existent
in rural areas, and that therefore timely enrollment
could not be facilitated by way of preschool education.
Among the responses was that not enrolling on time
124
can be detected with the e-school project and that
through the middle of the first semester teachers visit
and try to persuade families, but that these efforts are
not enough.
When participants were asked about general
educational problems, approximately one third
indicated that problems such as lack of sufficient
number of teachers or crowded classrooms were not
effective factors. On the other hand, factors such as
teachers’ being viewed as insufficient in quality or in
number, or classrooms’ containing too many students
were emphasized as reasons effective in guardians’
sending their children to school with one year delay.
Because the participants were not well informed about
this issue, they repeated the factors that they already
discussed.
In semi-structured interviews, when participants were
asked which attributes of children were effective in
not enrolling in school on time, a large portion listed
being handicapped or ill and/or being physically
underdeveloped, that is, being smaller than their agemates as the salient causes of not enrolling in school.
Specifically, it was indicated that in circumstances
where the children have disabilities they could not go
to school at all and that they were not accepted to
school but referred to rehabilitation centers.
When participants were asked to report the most
influential factors for not enrolling children in school
in the expected year, the following responses were
obtained:
• Social and cultural factors 47,6%,
• Economical reasons 35,0%,
• Institutional causes 8,8%,
• The child’s own characteristics 5,0%,
• Overall problem in the field of education 2,5%,
• Environmental reasons 1,3%.
As it can be seen, stakeholders determined social
and cultural factors to be the most influential factors
associated with children not enrolling in school in the
expected year. Following this, were the economical
reasons and these two together far outweighed
the other factors listed as reasons for not enrolling
in school on time. Social and cultural factors were
mixed together in the participant answers and were
not clearly separated from each other. Therefore,
the responses about social and cultural factors were
examined together.
According to the participants, when they were asked
whether children not enrolling in school when the
children were at the determined age was associated
with sex, even though they had previously discussed
cultural factors that influence girls negatively, 57.5%
of the participants stated that they did not think sex
made such an influence on children’s enrollment.
Majority of the participants, who indicated that there
were gender differences in the process of children’s
enrollment in schools, reported that schooling system
functions to disadvantage of girls. The aforementioned
opinions were typically reported by principals of
schools, teachers, district directors of national
education, and representatives of non-governmental
organizations. This situation usually shows itself by
not sending them to school at all. The protective
reactions the girls face as well as the beliefs that the
girls would be fooled into being easily manipulated to
be taken advantage, come together in the minds of
families and hence make families not place enough
importance on girls’ education and not send them to
school on time. On the other hand, some participants
reported that some families have a tendency to send
their daughters to school early. It was observed that
this view was held by participants from various social
backgrounds. When the participants’ explanations
for why families send their daughters to school late
were examined, it was found that waiting for the other
sibling to start school, fears about their daughters
going to school, and waiting to send their daughters
to school until they are forced were listed as some
of the factors associated with late enrollment of
girls. In addition to these factors, roles within the
family that were attributed to girls such as taking
care of the younger children in the family and taking
responsibilities with some of the household chores
reported to be the reasons for girls’ late school entry.
Some participants, who believed that there was no
gender difference in terms of factors associated with
late school entry stated that there used to be gender
discrimination, but they believed that this difference
no longer exists.
In summary, findings from qualitative analysis
support the findings of the quantitative investigation.
Participants typically emphasized factors related
to economic, social and cultural factors as factors
associated with late school enrollment. The most
striking aspect of the qualitative findings was that
these findings brought upon the importance of the
continuous interaction among the various factors that
influence the problem. Because of the limited financial
opportunities these families have, it appears that the
families feel a need to rank their priorities and they
put education, particularly girls’ education, and low on
their list of needs. Furthermore, other factors such as
parents with fairly limited or no education not being
able to understand their children’s development and
the role of education on their child’s development,
limited opportunities regarding access to school or, or
not being able to meet the demands of the schools,
are all factors that are in interaction with each
other and represent economical, social, cultural and
educational issues. These factors lie in the heart of the
problem.
Table 82. Whether wanting to enroll the child in school in 2007 – 2008
academic year* (Late enrollment)
Frequency
%
No, I did not want to
635
66,4
Yes, I wanted to
322
33,6
Total
957
100
125
3.9. Examination of the reasons
for late enrollment for in
association with various factors
According to the findings of the quantitative
investigation, families enrolled their children in school
not when these children were legally eligible, but
with a year delay for various reasons. Interestingly,
even though, limited opportunities, illness, child’s
developmental immaturity were reported to be
factors associated with not enrolling their children in
school the previous year, the majority of participants,
(66,4%), reported that they did not want to send
their children to school the previous year. When
these responses of the parents were examined based
on the province they lived in, in the late enrollment
group, it was found that in Şırnak, majority of the
participants (80,3%) had not wanted to enroll their
children in school. Şırnak was followed by province
of Ağrı (70,3%) in terms of having most parents
not wanting to enroll their children in school the
previous year. Bitlis, at 68%, was the province with
most parents reporting that they had wanted to
enroll their children in school the previous year. The
differences among the provinces were found to be
statistically significant, (χ2(9)=19.371, p<0.022) (See
Appendix Table 30). When this was examined in detail
based on paternal educational levels, no differences
among provinces were found (See Appendix Table
31). When a comparison was made based on paternal
occupations, it was found that 42,9% of the fathers
who were seasonal workers in the area they lived
in, and 35,6% of the unskilled workers had wanted
to enroll their children in school. Of those that were
business managers and administrators, 100% of
them and 82,1% of the migrant seasonal workers
had indicated that they had not wanted to enroll their
children in school the previous years. This particular
finding indicates that parents with different financial
opportunities could have different motivations to
enroll their children in school with delays. Still another
interesting finding is that in the rural living areas,
41,6% of the parents had reported that they had
wanted to enroll their children in school the previous
year while in the urban areas this was only 28% of the
parents. This difference between rural and urban living
areas were found to be statistically significant as well
and indicated that it was possible that in rural living
areas there were more serious structural barriers to
children’s timely enrollment in schools.
Table 83. Parental desire to enroll their children in primary school in 2007 – 2008
academic year based on residing in urban or rural areas (Late enrollment)
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No, I did not want it
233
58,4
402
72,0
Yes, I wanted it
166
41,6
156
28,0
Total
399
100
558
100
Late Enrollment : Χ2 : 19,407 degrees of freedom: 1 p=0,000
An interesting and a statistically significant finding
emerged when the relationship between whether
parents wanted to enroll their children in primary
school the previous year and the monthly income
of the families were examined, (χ2(6)=14.66,
p<0.05) . Coming first in line with 30.3%, were the
parents with a monthly income of 200 TL and less
who indicated that they did not want to enroll their
children in primary school the previous year. Parents
with monthly incomes between 601 and 750 TL were
among the parents who indicated least not wanting
126
to enroll their children in school the previous year
with 8,8%. Among the parents who indicated that
they had wanted to enroll their children in school the
previous year first in line were parents with a monthly
income of 200 TL and less (18,70%) and parents with
a monthly income of 501 and 600 TL (18,70%). Those
who made between 701 TL and 650 TL monthly, were
least likely to report that they had wanted to enroll
their children in schools with only 7% (See Appendix
Table32).
Figure 35.Parental desire to enroll their children in primary school in 2007 – 2008
academic year based on financial status of the legal guardian (%)
Families (n: 310) who indicated they wanted to enroll
their children in primary school the previous year,
but were not able to do so were asked to report their
activities to actualize their desires. Interestingly,
51,3% of these parents reported that they actually
took their children to school to do their enrollment to
schools, however, the schools rejected the enrollment
of their children with an excuse that their children
were too young to enroll in schools. This response
constituted 50% of the entire set of answers provided
by the families. These is the most striking and clear
answer that jumps out of all the answers given.
Since the schools rejected these children with an
excuse that these children were too young to enroll in
schools, these responses were compared to the actual
age of the children at the time the registration was
open for primary schools. Findings indicated that even
though there were a total of 158 children who were
denied enrollment to schools based on schools’ claims
that these children were too young, only 42 of these
children were younger than 72 months of age and 112
children were either at or above 72 months of age at
the time registration for schools were accepted (See
Table 84).
The responses of parents in the late enrollment group
who reported that they wanted to enroll their children
in school the previous year but were not able to for
various reasons were examined based on the month
of the year the child was born (See Table 86). Results
show that, 50% of these parents had children who
were born before the month of September but their
children were denied enrollment in school with a claim
that their children were too young for school.
There were 88 children in this group. These children
were clearly either 72 months or older than 72 months
of age. Eleven of those children who were denied
school enrollment were born in September and the
remaining 60 of them were born between October and
December. In other words, of those 159 children, who
were denied school enrollment, only 37,7% were born
between the months of October and December.
127
Table 84. Reasons for not enrolling their children in school despite attempts to enroll
children in schools in 2007 – 2008 academic year.*
(This question was asked only to those who reported that they had wanted to enroll their children in
school in 2007 – 2008 academic year)
(More information can be found in Appendix Table 33)
(Late enrollment, Base: 310 people)
I took my child to school, but the school denied enrollment
claiming that the child was too young.
I did not do anything because of economical problems
They did not enroll the child because the child was frail/ the
child was underdeveloped
We did the child’s enrollment, but the child did not want to go to
school
They did not take the child to school because the classrooms
were overcrowded
Because the child was too frail, they advised for the child’s
enrollment in kindergarten so that the child would become more
physically mature
They did not enroll the child in school because the child was
unwell
I was late for the registration, they did not enroll the child in
school
I did the child’s enrollment, but the child did not attend school
for various reasons***
We enrolled the child in school but the teacher sent the child
back home two months after the school began
Other
Total
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
159
50,0
51,3
28
8,8
9,0
28
8,8
9,0
18
5,7
5,8
18
5,7
5,8
11
3,5
3,5
9
2,8
2,9
8
2,5
2,6
6
1,9
1,9
6
1,9
1,9
27
8,4
8,6
318
100
102,6
** People who did not answer this question were not included in the table.
*** This situation was found to happen for some children: The children’s enrollments were completed, but the teachers had sent them
back home for reasons like the child was not succeeding and the child was too young. Principle of the school had recalled these children,
but no report cards were given to these children even though they were enrolled in schools at the end of the school year.
128
Table 85. The child’s age during 2007 – 2008 academic year and the reasons for not
enrolling the children in school even though the parents had wanted to enroll their
children in primary schools* (%) (Late enrollment)
(This question was asked only to those who reported that they had wanted to enroll their children in
school in 2007 – 2008 academic year.)
Younger than 72 months of
72 months
age
Base: 45
of age Base:
People
80 People
I took my child to school, but the school denied enrollment
claiming that the child was too young.
I did not do anything because of economical problems
They did not enroll the child because the child was frail/ the child
was underdeveloped
We did the child’s enrollment, but the child did not want to go to
school
They did not take the child to school because the classrooms
were overcrowded
Because the child was too frail, they advised for the child’s
enrollment in kindergarten so that the child would become more
physically mature
They did not enroll the child in school because the child was
unwell
I was late for the registration, they did not enroll the child in
school
I did the child’s enrollment, but the child did not attend school for
various reasons
We enrolled the child in school but the teacher sent the child
back home two months after the school began
Other
Total
Older than
72 months
of age Base:
192 People
57,5
42,0
48,4
6,25
6,7
10,4
13,75
13,0
5,7
5
2,2
6,8
1,25
6,7
7,3
1,25
6,7
3,6
2,5
2,2
3,1
2,5
4,4
2,1
1,25
-
2,6
1,25
2,2
2,1
7,5
13
7,8
100
100
100
The reasons for not enrolling their children in school
of those parents who wanted to enroll their children
in school in 2007-2008 academic year, but were not
able to do so, were examined in terms of whether they
lived in urban or rural areas. For both rural (52,5%)
and urban (47,4%) parents, one the most common
reason for not being able to enroll their children in
school was that their children were denied enrollment
in school with the claim that their children were
too young for school. Following this, the next most
common response for groups was financial difficulties
experienced by the families (See Table 87).
Parents whose children are still unenrolled in schools
(n:134), were asked to report whether they had made
any attempts to enroll their children in school and
the majority of them (85,1%) reported that they had
not made any attempts. When the provinces were
examined, it was found that no parent in Şırnak or
Hakkari had made any attempts to enroll their children
in school. Osmaniye (66,7%) and Bitlis (66,7%) had
the most parents who had made attempts to enroll
their children in school. The differences among the
provinces were statistically significant, (χ2(8)=19.36,
p<0.05) (See Appendix Table 34).
129
academic year although the parents had wanted to enroll their children in school 5
(Late enrollment)
January - August
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
I took my child to school, but the
school denied enrollment claiming
that the child was too young.
88
50,0
11
44,0
60
51,3
I did not do anything because of
economical problems
17
9,7
4
16,0
7
6,0
They did not enroll the child because
the child was frail/ the child was underdeveloped
11
6,3
1
4,0
16
13,7
We did the child’s enrollment, but the
child did not want to go to school
11
6,3
2
8,0
5
4,3
12
6,8
3
12,0
3
2,6
7
4,0
4
3,4
Other
30
17,0
4
16,0
22
18,8
Total
176
100
25
100
117
100
They did not take the child to school
because the classrooms were overcrowded
Because the child was too frail, they
advised for the child’s enrollment in
kindergarten so that the child would
become more physically mature
130
October December
September
Table 87. Reasons for unenrolled children to be not enrolled in schools in
2007-2008 academic year although the parents had wanted to enroll their children
in school by living in rural or urban areas* (Late enrollment)
(This question was asked to those who wanted to enroll their children in school in
2007-2008 academic year)
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
85
52,5
74
47,4
11
6,8
17
10,9
12
7,4
16
10,3
9
5,6
9
5,8
14
8,6
4
2,6
6
3,7
5
3,2
3
1,9
6
3,8
3
1,9
5
3,2
1
0,6
5
3,2
4
2,5
2
1,3
Other
14
8,6
13
8,3
Total
162
100
156
100
I took my child to school, but the school denied
enrollment claiming that the child was too
young.
I did not do anything because of economical
problems
They did not enroll the child because the child
was frail/ the child was underdeveloped
We did the child’s enrollment, but the child did
not want to go to school
Teachers did not want to enroll the child in
school because of overcrowded classrooms
I took the child to school but they said the child
was too small and asked me to take the child to
kindergarten
They did not enroll the child in school because
the child was unwell
I was late for the registration, they did not enroll
the child in school
I did the child’s enrollment, but the child did not
attend school for various reasons
We enrolled the child in school but the teacher
sent the child back home two months after the
school began
Those parents who reported that they had made some
attempts to enroll their children in school were asked
to clarify what types of attempts they had made. Of
those parents, 19 of them responded to this question.
Their answers are listed below in Table 88.
131
Figure 36. Whether parents had made attempts to enroll their children in school up to
this point (No enrollment, Base: 134 People)
Table 88. Attempts made to enroll the child in school up to this point* (No enrollment)
(This question was asked to those who made some attempts to enroll their children in school.)
Frequency
%
5
26,3
3
15,8
I took the child to school, but they said I missed the registration period
2
10,5
School administration did not take the child because the classrooms were overcrowded
2
10,5
The teacher did not take the child because the child was ill/or had a disability
2
10,5
1
5,3
1
5,3
1
5,3
I tried to convince the child to go to school
1
5,3
Attending school for the disabled
1
5,3
Total
19
100
I took the child to school for the enrollment, but could not, because I had no
money for registration
I took the child to school but they did not take the child claiming the child was
too young
I went to see the school administration, but the child was too scared, so I could
not enroll the child in school
I enrolled the child in school but child did not go to school. I won’t enroll the child
in school again.
I wanted to enroll the child in school but because of transportation problems, I
could not
132
3.9.1. The reasons effective in children
enrolling in school after a year
delay
The parents who had not enrolled their children in
school the previous year were asked to report what
made them enroll their children in school in 20082009 academic year. They were asked to report what
had happened that year that was different from the
previous year that allowed them to take their children
to school. Responses obtained from the parents
showed that the majority of parents (73.5%) had
thought that their children were not at the right age
the previous year. Thinking that the child was at the
right age to enroll in school constituted 68.4% of all
the responses provided. The next common response
following this was the parents had thought their
children’s development was better this year. This was
a reason for 7.9% of the parents and it constituted
7.3% of all the responses.
Parent’s responses to why they had enrolled their
children in school this year were examined based
on whether they had wanted to enroll their children
in school the previous year. First, the responses
of the parents who did not think about enrolling
their children in school were examined. Detailed
examination of the results showed that 72,6% of
parents had not enrolled their children in school
because they believed their children were not at the
right age for school enrollment. Thinking their children
was at the right age for school now was 67.5% of all
the responses. The next most common reason for
the parents (7.8%) was thinking their children were
developing well this year. This was 7.2% of all the
responses.
Next, the reports of those parents who reported that
they had wanted to enroll their children in school
during the 2007 - 2008 academic year, but were not
able to do so were examined in terms of what made
them enroll their children in school in the 2008 –
2009 academic year. For these parents as well, the
most common response was that they had believed
their children were at the right age for school this
year. This was given as a reason by 73,3% of the
parents, and again this answer constituted 68,1% of
all the answers. Interestingly even though families
had differed in terms of wanting to enroll their children
in school the previous year, their reasons for enrolling
their children in school during the 2008-2009
academic year, after a year delay, were very similar.
Table 89. The reasons for enrolling the child in school in 2008 – 2009 academic year*
(Late enrollment)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
The child was now at the age for school enrollment
700
68,4
73,5
Child’s development was well
75
7,3
7,9
Improvements in the financial situation of the families
66
6,5
6,9
The child wanting to go to school/the child not being scared to go
to school
The child’s health had improved
54
5,3
5,7
25
2,4
2,6
Transportation problem was resolved
8
0,8
0,8
Other
95
9,3
10,0
Total
1023
100
107,5
133
Table 90. Reasons for enrolling children in school a year later*
(Late enrollment, Base: 632 people)
This table included the responses of the parents who had not wanted to enroll their children in school in
2007-2008 academic year.
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
459
67,5
72,6
49
7,2
7,8
The child wanted to go to school
29
4,3
4,6
Family friends provided financial help
21
3,1
3,3
We enrolled the child in school so that the child would go to
school with the friends and peers
19
2,8
3,0
We got some loans to enroll the child in school
14
2,1
2,2
Child’s health improved/ got well
13
1,9
2,1
Our financial condition improved
12
1,8
1,9
Other
57
7,8
9,3
Total
680
100
107,6
Enrolled the child because it was the time the child enrolled in
school/The child was not at the right age for school last year
Enrolled the child in school because we thought the child’s
development was fine
Table 91 shows the reasons for sending their children in school in 2008-2009 academic year even though they
had wanted to enroll their children in school during the 2007 - 2008 academic year.
134
Table 91. The reasons for enrolling their children in school 2008-2009 academic
year for those parents who had wanted to enroll their children in school
2007-2008 academic year* (Late enrollment, Base: 318 people)
This table included the responses of the parents who had wanted to enroll their children in school
in 2007-2008 academic year.
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
233
68,1
73,3
20
5,8
6,3
The child wanted to go to school
16
4,7
5,0
Child’s health improved/ got well
10
2,9
3,1
I had already wanted to enroll the child in school, so we did it.
9
2,6
2,8
6
1,8
1,9
Despite having financial problems, we wanted to send the child to
school
4
1,2
1,3
We resolved the problem of school bus
4
1,2
1,3
Other
40
12
12
Total
342
100
107,5
Enrolled the child because it was the time the child enrolled in
school/The child was not at the right age for school last year
Enrolled the child in school because we thought the child’s
development was fine
3.9.2. Reasons for late school
enrollment according to the other
social stakeholders
When the findings of quantitative research were
examined, it was found that one of the most important
reasons for enrolling children in school after a year
delay was thinking or believing that the child’s
development or age was now sufficient. It was also
found that it was not only parents, also some schools
had not enrolled the children in school claiming that
the children were too young to enroll in school. This
finding suggests that issues such as schools being
overcrowded were also effective in this result. In
addition to the factors associated with children’s age
and development, more structural problems such as
economical difficulties and resolving issues related
to transportation to schools were also provided as
reasons for late school enrollment.
During semi-structured interviews participants were
asked to speculate on whether various efforts put on
enrolling children in schools on time were effective.
Overall participants seem to agree that these efforts
were effective, particularly the ones that are done
after screening and identification work are complete.
Especially the visits of teachers and principles of
schools once the children are identified to convince
parents to enroll their children in school were thought
to be very effective. For this reason, participants
emphasized the importance of home visits and close
monitoring after identifying these children who were
not enrolled in school on time. Along with close
monitoring, media campaigns to create awareness
and provide information, and information’s provided in
the mosques were also thought to be effective. Even
though there were few participants who believed that
the efforts put into fighting late school enrollment
were not effective, they seemed to put the blame
135
on the mukhtars and teachers for not being very
sensitive. This group also believed that the school
expenses associated with sending a child to school
were burdensome and had not been adequately
resolved.
3.9.3. Knowledge of laws
concerning school enrollment
When parents were asked about whether they
knew the laws and regulations of concerning school
enrollment, only 23,5% of them indicated that they
knew the laws. When the knowledge of parents
residing in different provinces were compared, it
was found that Bitlis had the most parents with the
knowledge of the laws (66,7%); the highest rate of
parents who did not have knowledge of such laws
was found in Hakkari at 100%. Differences among the
provinces were found to be statistically significant,
(χ2(9)=76.89, p<0.001) (See Appendix Table ).
Discussants of focus group meetings generally
reported that they believed parents had a knowledge
that school enrollment began at age 72 months.
However, the discussants believed that the families
had a tendency to pretend not to know or ignore such
information. the topic of discussion was about the
Discussants further reported that when education of
female children, the families generally believe and
defend themselves with the idea that “The girls will
go to school then what” When the discussants reports
on whether people know of this information based
on whether they live in rural or urban areas were
examined, no difference was found. Overall about
23% reported that this information was known to the
families.
Figure 37. Knowledge of Article 15 within MONE Regulations for Primary School
Institutions Ministry of Education (Late enrollment, Base: 954 people)
136
Figure 38. Knowledge of Article 15 in Ministry of Education Primary Schools
Regulations based on living in rural or urban areas in late enrollment group (%)
Table 92. Sources of information about the school enrollment age (Late enrollment)
Those reported knowing
the enrollment age was 6
Those reported not
knowing the enrollment
age was 6
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
School
79
21,3
303
29,1
Relatives
78
21
233
22,4
Family elders
68
18,3
240
23,1
Neighbor
74
19,9
159
15,3
Friend
44
11,9
65
6,3
Media
16
4,3
16
1,5
Mukhtar
3
0,8
12
1,2
Kindergarten teacher/teacher
5
1,3
2
0,2
Principle of the school
1
0,3
1
0,1
Imam
-
1
0,1
Spouse
1
0,3
-
-
Students
1
0,3
-
Does not remember
1
0,3
8
0,8
371
100
1.040
100
Total
137
Results revealed that there were similarities in these
two groups in terms of where they got the information
about school enrollment age.
Article 15 regulating school enrollment age is the
same article that regulates how and under which
conditions school enrollment can be postponed. If
parents desire to postpone their children’s school
enrollment, they contact the schools, write a petition
explaining their reasons and request a postponement
of one year. After this procedure, delaying the child’s
school enrollment for a year can be legally granted.
When parents were asked whether they made this
request to postpone their children’s school enrollment,
only 2,7% of them reported that they did and 47% of
the parents reported that they did not do it. Remaining
50.3% of the parents reported that they never heard of
such a right. When parents living in different provinces
were examined to see who had legally requested
postponing their children’s school enrollment, it was
found that parents in Osmaniye were the ones who
took advantage of such a right the most. Following this
was Şırnak. Bitlis had the most parents who reported
that they had never heard of such a right.
Petitioning to postpone their children’s enrollment
in schools was examined as a function of parental
education levels. Results revealed that the findings
were statistically significant both for fathers’
(χ2(4)=17.93, p<0.005) and mothers’ (χ2(2)=15.10,
p<0.005) educational levels.
Figure 39. Whether parents petitioned to delay their child’s enrollment in schools in
late enrollment group (Late enrollment, Base: 951 people)
138
Table 93. Petitioning to postpone children’s school enrollment disaggregated by
fathers’ educational levels (Late enrollment)
(When the participant was a father)
Yes, I did it
No, I did not
I did not, but did not
know we had such
a right
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Has no schooling
9
36,0
214
49,9
185
39,5
through 5th and 1st through 8th)
13
52,0
184
42,9
262
56,0
Graduate of high school or above
3
12,0
31
7,2
21
4,5
Total
25
100
429
100
468
100
Petitioning to legally postpone children’s school
enrollment was examined as a function of living in
urban and rural areas. The results were statistically
significant, (χ2(2)=15.10, p<0.005). Moreover, results
revealed that there were very few people who knew
the right or took advantage of this right (Appendix
Table 38).
During the qualitative investigations, participants who
were not MONE workers such as teachers, principles,
province or districts directors of national education
were asked whether they had a knowledge of Article
15. More than half of the participants (57,1%) reported
that they did not know of such a regulation. As it was
discussed previously, Article 15 states that “children
who complete 72 months of age by December 31 of
a given year can be enrolled in primary schools that
academic year. Those who are eligible in terms of their
chronological age can be granted a year of legal delay
if the legal guardian gives a written petition.”
Table 94. Petitioning to postpone children’s school enrollment disaggregated by
living in urban and rural areas (Late enrollment)
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Yes, I did it
10
2,5
16
2,9
No, I did not
217
54,4
230
41,7
I did not, but did not know we had such a right
172
43,1
306
55,4
Total
399
100
552
100
139
Not being aware of this article was examined for what
backgrounds these social stakeholders had. Findings
revealed that those who did not know this article were
parents, local media representatives, and mukhtars
the most frequently. Examination of the knowledge
of this article which is an important legal statement
clarifying legal age for school enrollment is important
for this research.
Participants, including MONE employees, were asked
whether they thought Article 15 was in effect. Of
those participants, 67% reported that they believed
that Article 15 was in effect. These participants
stated that this was not just what their beliefs, it
was based on their observations, and experiences of
themselves and others. When the responses were
examined based on the backgrounds of participants,
it was found that MONE employees being in the lead,
NGO representatives, local government workers, and
religious officials thought or believed that Article
15 was used. These participants seemed to have
more optimistic beliefs about the use of Article 15.
Principals of schools were more represented among
these people. Moreover, school administrators among
the participants reported that they are using Article
15 for the children of parents doing seasonal migrant
work who seem to show signs of developmental
problems. One of the participants reported that they
accepted children in these conditions into schools
without officially enrolling them in schools and
monitored them for a while to determine whether
they should keep these children in school or not. And
it was also reported that both because of financial
limitations and wanting to see their children develop
better when they enter school, parents defer to the
decisions of school administrators. A few participants
discussed that because of the limitations they are
experiencing at their schools in terms of materials and
teachers, school administrators are using Article 15 to
not accept more children in their schools. On the other
hand, the number of people who claimed that parents
came with such requests and they ended up using
Article 15 was not very few.
Some of the participants who reported that Article 15
was not used in full effect claimed that the issue was
not so much enrolling children in school late, they
claimed that the issue rather wanted to enroll their
Figure 40. Someone giving information to families about the school enrollment age
being 6 in the academic year of 2007 – 2008 (%)
140
children earlier than the school enrollment age. These
participants claimed to witness that even if the school
administration argued that these children needed to
be in school on time, not early, these families were not
easily convinced.
When participants were asked whether they believed
that Article 15 was misused or abused, 93% of
the participants did not agree. It was the same for
participants from different backgrounds. Of those 5
participants who claimed that Article 15 was misused,
3 of them reported that their report was not based on
experience, it was rather based on their perceptions
and expectations. On the other hand, those who
claimed that Article 15 was not misused argued that
parents could not do it because they did not even
know of such a regulation.
Table 95. Whether families received guidance about the school enrollment again
the 2007-2008 academic year disaggregated by living in urban and rural areas
Rural living areas
Urban living areas
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
392
97,8
531
95,5
9
2,2
25
4,5
401
100
556
100
No, there was not
Yes, There was
Total
Table 96. Distribution of the people who informed families that the school
enrollment age was 6* (Late enrollment)
(This question was asked to those who reported that somebody had provided guidance about the
school enrollment age was 6 in the 2007-2008 academic year.)
Base: 34
People
Frequency
Relative, neighbor etc. people from the surroundings
Teachers in the neighborhood
No enrollment
Percentage Percentage of
Frequency
of Responses Respondents**
%
18
46,2
52,9
1
100
14
35,9
41,2
-
-
Principal of the school in the neighborhood
4
10,3
11,8
-
-
Mukhtar of the neighborhood
2
5,1
5,9
-
-
Imam of the mosque
1
2,6
2,9
-
-
Total
39
100
114,7
1
100
141
3.10. Whether families received
guidance about the school
enrollment age
nobody guiding them about the school enrollment age.
Most parents who reported that they had received
guidance were in Gümüşhane with 13.3% (See
Appendix Table 39 ).
Participants both in the late enrollment and no
enrollment group were asked to report whether they
had anybody talk to them about the school enrollment
age. Results are listed below in Figure 40 on page 140.
Families who reported that they had somebody
provide them with guidance about the school
enrollment age were asked to report who those people
were that said the school enrolment age was 6. In
both the unenrolled and the late enrollment groups,
parents reported that their relatives (46.2%) had
informed them about school enrollment age followed
by teachers and principals in the neighborhood with
35.9% and 10.3% respectively.
Participants from different provinces were examined
in terms of whether somebody had provided guidance
about the school enrollment age being 6, and the
findings showed that no parents in Bitlis and Hakkâri,
and over 90% of the parents in other provinces had
Table 97. The information given by the person who guided the families that they
needed to enroll their 6 year old children in school* (Late enrollment)
(This question was asked to those who reported that somebody had provided guidance about the
school enrollment age was 6 in the 2007-2008 academic year.)
Base: 24
people
Frequency
% of
Responses
11
42,3
45,8
-
-
7
26,9
29,2
-
-
3
11,5
12,5
-
-
1
3,8
4,2
-
-
1
3,8
4,2
-
-
1
3,8
4,2
-
-
1
3,8
4,2
-
-
-
-
-
1
100
Other
1
3,8
4,2
-
-
Total
26
100
108,3
1
100
Told me that I needed to enroll my child in
school
Said that children who complete 6 years of
age needed to attend school
Said that I could enroll the child in school
without paying any fees
Child needed to be in school and get
education
State supports students
We had to send the child to school and
otherwise we would be engaging in a crime
Children at the age 7 needed to enroll in
school
Said that the time for school enrollment had
passed
142
No enrollment
% of
Frequency
Respondents**
%
When parents reported that somebody had talked to
them about the school enrollment age, families were
asked to report what this person had said to them.
The most common response to this question was that
families were told that the children at the age of 6
needed to be enrolled in schools (69,2%). Even though
families provided many detailed and personal reasons
for why they did not enroll their children in schools
the previous year, the guidance that they received to
convince them to enroll their children in schools seem
to be more general and only stating that the families
were obliged to enroll their children in school.
As it was discussed, very few parents were informed
about the necessity to enroll their children in school at
the age of 6, and only one person was informed about
the fact that this was a legal obligation. Moreover, of
those 32 people, almost half of them (40,6%) had
reported that this information was provided to them
after the schools resumed. When these parents were
asked to report what they had done after getting
such information, 12 people (38.7%) in the late
enrollment group, and one person in the unenrolled
group reported that they tried enrolling their children
in school.
In the 2007 – 2008 academic year, after getting the
information that children at the age of 6 need to be in
school, 12 people in the late enrollment group and 1
person in the unenrolled group made any attempts to
enroll their children in school. When the parents who
claimed to have made some attempts to report what
they had done, 7 reported that their children actually
enrolled in school, 4 reported that they went to school
but the school did not complete children’s enrollment,
and one reported that they completed all the paper
work but did not have the money for the registration
and tried to resolve transportation problems.
Table 98. Whether the information about all 6 year old children being required
to be in school was given before or after the registration period of 2007 – 2008
academic year* (Late enrollment)
No Enrollment
Not enrolling on
time
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Spoke prior to school
registration period
18
58,1
1
100
19
59,4
Spoke after registration
13
41,9
-
-
13
40,6
Total
31
100
1
100
32
100
3.11. Decision makers for children’s
enrollment in school the
following year
68,3% of the participants. That indicating it was only
the fathers’ decision was 23% and only mothers’
decision was 8,2%.
Participants with children who had enrolled in school
with a year delay were asked who made the decision
the following year to enroll their children in school.
Respondents indicating that this was a decision taken
by both the mothers and fathers together constituted
143
Figure 41. Those who decide to enroll the children in school in 2008-2009 academic
year(%) (Late enrollment, Base: 959 people)
In order to better understand the decision making
process within the families, participants were
asked who was more influential in the decision. Not
surprisingly, 76,5% reported the fathers were more
influential in these decisions. In addition to asking
about the decisions to enroll the children in schools,
the participants were asked to report who had decided
not to enroll children in school the previous year. In
the late enrollment group, 54,9% of the participants
and in the unenrolled group, 42,2% reported that it
was the fathers’ decision to not enroll their children in
school the previous year. In the no enrollment group,
with 46,7% and in the late enrollment with 31,5%
fathers were reported to be more influential in the
decision making process (See Appendix Table 40).
3.12. Work that has been done
to promote timely enrollment
of children in schools
Over 36 % of the participants (%36,6) interviewed
through semi-structured interviews reported that
parents made inquiries about schooling issues like
sending their children to school and legal enrollment
144
age for school. More in-depth examinations of the
findings indicate that almost all kinds of stakeholders
seem to face such inquiries from parents. When
parents’ inquiries were examined in detail, topics
like enrolling their children in school early, and what
parents can do if the children’s recorded age and
actual age do not match were emphasized. Regarding
early enrollment of girls, another question asked was
whether it was possible to start girls in school early
so that they would leave school before they reach
puberty. Even though this issue would seem at first
to run counter to late school entry, this finding is
important because it demonstrates the complicated
nature of girls’ school enrollment. This finding also
shows how social and cultural factors influence the
decision to enroll girls in school.
It was also found that figuring out when and how
children were going to be registered to schools was
problematic and obtaining accurate information from
the authorities was yet another problem. Another
important finding is about whose opinions are valued
and who has a say about children’s physical and
mental development. Participants in semi-structured
interviews reported that parents’ worry about
their children’s development is an important factor
influencing late school entry. Therefore, according to
participants any decision to not send a child to school
based on developmental concerns should be taken
with a specialist.
Of the participants in semi-structured interviews,
29,5% reported that, currently, either they or their
institutions are involved in work to achieve school
enrollment of children when they are legally eligible.
When types of work they are involved in were
examined, it was found that their primary focus was
on identifying children who were at the legal age to
enter school. Religious officials of the state religious
affairs department reported that they inform parents
about school registration dates during their Friday
sermons. Similarly, local media representatives
also stated that they air programs related to school
registration around school starting dates. Local media
representatives also reported airing programs that
encourage parents to enroll children in school, and
they also work in collaboration with mukhtars. One
finding worth highlighting was that all the work listed
above concerning school enrollment was carried
out only by one third of the participants who were
interviewed.
3.13. Activities children were not
enrolled in school on time
engaged in during 2007 –
2008 academic year
When the participants were asked to report about how
the children with late enrollment to schools spent
their time during the past year when they were out of
school, the reponses provided a variety of activities.
It is interesting to note that activities reported to be
done by the children the most were playing in the
streets. It was also found that in the late enrollment
group 55 out of 959 children were going to preschool a
few days a week or everyday.
followed by watching TV, and taking care of younger
siblings at home (See Table 100).
Findings that were obtained from semi-structured
interviews supported the findings of the quantitative
investigation and showed that 81% of the participants
reported that families did not prepare their children
for school. Even though this was typically reported by
principals, teachers and inspectors more than other
participants of the interviews among all the social
groups, people reporting similar thoughts were high.
When participants were asked about what families fail
to teach their children the most, participants typically
concluded that families are uneducated and because
of that they do not teach self-hygiene and self-care
skills.
3.14. People who were influential
in the decision to not enroll
children in school
Even though it was found that mothers and fathers
act together in the decision to enroll their children to
school, fathers play a much more important role in the
decision to not enroll their children to school. In the
late enrollment group, 77,6%, in the unenrolled group
88.8% reported that fathers were more influential
(See Appendix Table 41).
Teachers (n=16) and principles (n=14) being on the
top of the list, 37 people outside of the household
decided for the enrollment of children in late
enrollment group. In the unenrolled group there
were only two people influential on this decision. As
expected, majority of these people were males (n=31).
Of these people, 25 of them were university graduates,
most of them being principals and teachers, and only
3 of them were graduates of primary schools.
When children who are still out of school were
examined in terms of how they spent their time during
the school year, it was also found that playing at
home or in the street was the most common activities
145
Less than
once a
month
Total
17
2
-
1
-
913
Watching TV
159
3
-
-
-
-
162
Going to preschool
43
12
-
-
-
-
55
Learning information related to early childhood education (counting, alphabet, etc)
24
9
2
1
1
-
37
Taking care of siblings at home
22
10
-
1
-
-
33
Helping with household chores
14
12
7
2
2
-
37
Just staying home
10
10
-
-
-
-
20
Riding bicycles
9
-
-
-
-
-
9
Playing computer games
6
2
-
-
-
-
8
Painting, music, etc
5
2
1
-
-
-
8
Going to the village
5
-
1
-
-
-
6
Going to doctors/ getting treatment
3
1
-
-
1
-
5
Helping with work in the field or in the
garden
2
8
2
-
6
1
19
Taking care of animals
2
3
1
-
1
-
7
Selling tissues etc in the streets
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
Reading books
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
Helping father
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
Going to summer school
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
Going out with the family
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
Going to a course to learn Kur’an
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
Going to school occasionally and attending
class
Making masks
Once a
month
A few days
a week
893
Once a
week
Almost
everyday
At home/in the street playing
Late enrollment
(Frequency)
146
Once every
two weeks
Table 99. Activities children in the late enrollment group engaged majority of the
time within a day during 2007 – 2008 academic year
Almost
everyday
A few
days a
week
Once a
week
Less than
once a
month
Total
Table 100. Activities unenrollment children engaged majority of the time within a
day during 2007 – 2008 academic year (Unenrolled) (Frequency)
At home/in the street playing
107
4
2
-
113
Watching TV
35
1
-
-
36
9
3
-
-
12
Taking care of siblings at home
9
1
-
1
11
Just staying home
3
1
-
-
4
Helping with work in the field or in the garden
2
2
-
-
4
Riding bicycles
2
-
-
-
2
Riding in a handicapped car and going places
2
-
-
-
2
Taking care of animals
2
-
-
-
2
1
-
-
-
1
Learning information related to education
1
-
-
-
1
Going to preschool
1
-
-
-
1
Going school for the disabled
1
-
-
-
1
Going to rehabilitation center
-
-
1
-
1
3.15. Educational opportunities
provided for the child while
the child was out of school
and activities the child
engaged in
Of the activities children did during the year they were
out of school, families were asked about how much
educational activities were encouraged at home.
Results are provided below.
Families that indicated providing educational activities
to their children were asked about what they taught
their children. Both in the late enrollment group
(n=407) and also in the unenrolled group (n=134),
they were providing their children with activities that
would help children recognize their letters, writing,
reading, writing their names, and recognizing the
numbers. In the late enrollment group, out of 407
participants, 74,4%, and in the unenrolled group
58.6% taught recognizing the letters in the alphabet
and again in the late enrollment group 56.5% of the
parents and in the unenrolled group 48.3% of the
parents taught about writing letters. Parents who
reported teaching their children how to read were
41.5% in the late enrollment group, and 48.3% in the
unenrolled group. Skills that were taught following
these were recognizing, numbers, shapes, and colors
for both groups (See Tables 102 and 103).
147
Table 101. Relationship status of the individual who decided to enroll the child in
school and lives outside the home
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Teacher
16
43,2
-
-
Principal
14
37,8
1
50,0
Uncle (father’s brother)
3
8,1
-
-
Sibling (older sister/brother)
2
5,4
1
50,0
Grandmother (father’s mother)
1
2,7
-
-
Uncle (mother’s brother)
1
2,7
-
-
Total
37
100
2
100
Figure 42. Teaching educational activities at home during 2007 – 2008 academic year
148
Table 102. Educational activities taught at home to children in the late
enrollment group (Late enrollment, Base: 407 people)
(This question was asked to those who reported to have thought educational activities to their children.)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents*
Recognizing the letters in the alphabet
303
23,0
74,4
Writing the letters in the alphabet
230
17,5
56,5
Reading
169
12,8
41,5
Writing the name
158
12,0
38,8
Recognizing the letters
136
10,3
33,4
Counting from 1 to 10
127
9,6
31,2
72
5,5
17,7
Recognizing the colors
70
5,3
17,2
Counting from 1 to 100 or more
42
3,2
10,3
Recognizing the geometrical shapes
6
0,5
1,5
Simple mathematical additions and subtractions
3
0,2
0,7
Foreign language
1
0,1
0,2
1317
100
323,6
Total
3.15.1. How did the child spend a typical
day when the child was out of
school
Participants were asked to describe how these children
who did not enroll school at the age they were legally
required to enroll spend their typical day. The most
commonly given response was that these children
spent their time playing at home or in the streets.
Does not play any games was a response of 2.2% of
the participants (See Table 104). Even though how
often the children engaged in these activities varied
quite a lot, other activities reported to be engaged
in by these children were learning things related to
school (45.2%); attending kindergarten, engaging
in art, like painting, or music, (46.9%); looking after
siblings at home (29%), and helping with household
chores (21.6%). However, none of these activities were
reported to be done always or often.
Findings obtained from focus group meetings
were similar to the quantitative findings. When the
discussants were asked to report how they thought
these children spent their time at home when they
were not in school, they reported that these children
were spending a lot of time in the streets wandering
without engaging in anything, helping families at home
with household chores, and working in the street or
in the gardens. There was no difference among the
participants based on their backgrounds.
149
Table 103. Educational activities thought at home to children in the no enrollment group
(No enrollment, Base: 29 people)
(This question was asked to those who reported to have thought educational activities to their children.)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents*
Recognizing the letters in the alphabet
17
17,5
58,6
Writing the letters in the alphabet
14
14,4
48,3
Reading
14
14,4
48,3
Writing the name
12
12,4
41,4
10
10,3
34,5
Recognizing the letters
9
9,3
31
8
8,2
27,6
Recognizing the colors
7
7,2
24,1
Counting from 1 to 100 or more
4
4,1
13,8
Recognizing the geometrical shapes
2
2,1
6,9
Total
97
100
334,5
3.15.2. Activities children engage in
during a typical day in the
late enrollment group
In the late enrollment group, children were examined
based on their sex and whether they looked after their
siblings at home. The findings revealed significant
differences between boys and girls, (χ2(1)=9.74,
p<0.005) indicating that more girls (15.4%) looked
after their siblings at home than did boys (8,8%). The
remaining children were reported to not participate
in the care of their siblings. Even though the portion
of these children appears to be small, considering
these children quite young and they are out of school
system, the fact that they are taking care of their
siblings at home is striking. It was reported either
for boys and girls that they were playing at home or
in the streets. No statistically significant differences
between boys and girls were found in this regard.
Another activity the children were reported to engage
in was playing games on the computer. As it can be
150
expected because of very limited financial conditions
of these families, most children (girls= 97,8%; boys=
96,3%) did not spend any time on the computer. When
parents were asked to report whether their children
sold tissues in the streets, only one male child was
reported to do this. As it can be predicted, this was
associated with living in an urban area. Because
the traditional family structures and the gendered
division of labor in the household are commonly
observed in Turkey, it was not surprising that there
were differences between male and female children
in terms of how much they were reported to help
with household chores, (χ2(1)=12.55, p<0.001).
Findings revealed that 12.6% of the female children
and only 6% of the male children helped around the
house. Even though there were few parents reporting
that their children were helping around the house,
findings still indicated that more girls were helping
around the house than boys. Working in the field or
in the garden seems to be reported slightly more for
boys (97%) than girls (94.4%), but this difference
Table 104. Activities the children engaged in a typical day the previous year when
the child was out of school (Late Enrollment)*
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
(2007-2008 academic year)
Playing at home/in the street
55,6
34,1
6,8
1,3
2,2
947
100
Attending kindergarten
4,7
3,4
1,5
1,2
89,3
949
%
100
Never
Total
Frequency (%)
Engaging in activities like art (painting),
music
Learning things related to school
4,2
10,1
13,4
9,2
63,1
945
100
4,3
16,1
19,6
5,2
54,8
908
100
Looking after siblings at home
2,6
2,8
6,5
17,0
71,0
949
100
0,8
0,9
1,2
2,0
95,0
949
100
Help with household chores
0,5
1,7
7,0
12,5
78,4
947
100
Help with the work in the garden/field
0,2
0,4
3,7
8,6
87,1
946
100
Selling things in the streets like tissues
0,1
-
-
0,9
98,9
949
100
Help take care of someone sick at home
0,1
-
0,5
1,0
98,4
947
100
Help with the work where we go to work as
seasonal workers
0,1
0,3
1,5
5,4
92,7
949
100
was not statistically significant. Again when children
were examined based on their sex whether they
were provided with educational activities or not,
40.9% of the boys and 39% of the girls were reported
to be provided with such activities, not revealing
any statistical significant sex differences. Because
there were too few children reported to take care of
someone sick at home, no examinations based on
child sex were conducted. Those reported to go for
seasonal migrant work reported that both boys (n=9)
and girls (n=9) engaged in such work equally. Even
though the findings did not reveal any statistically
significant sex differences, only 8% of the girls and
11.1% of the boys were reported to have attended
kindergarten. Both female (27.7%) and male (27.8%)
children almost equally engaged in painting or music
activities at home. Statistical examination of sex
differences for looking after siblings did not reveal any
significant differences indicating 14.2% of the girls and
10.5% of the boys had looked after their siblings at
home.
151
152
Figure 43. Looking after siblings disaggregated
by child sex (%)
Figure 44. Playing at home or in the streets
disaggregated by child sex (%)
Figure 45. Playing computer games
Figure 46. Helping with household chores
Figure 47. Helping with the work in the field and Figure 48. Child receiving educational activities
in the garden disaggregated by child sex (%)
Figure 49. Child helping with the care of a sick
person at home disaggregated by child sex (%)
Figure 50. Helping with the work in the place
the families go to work as seasonal workers
153
154
Figure 51. Child attending kindergarten
Figure 52. Child engaging in painting and music
activities disaggregated by child sex (%)
Of those children in the late enrollment group, those
living in rural areas (98,2%) played in the streets more
than those in urban areas (95,3%). This difference
was statistically significant, (χ2(1)=5.85, p<0.05). The
children who enrolled in school with a year delay were
reported to spend most of their time playing at home
or in the streets. Those living in the urban areas (4,7%)
played on the computers more than those who lived
in rural areas (0,5%), The difference between the late
enrollment and unenrolled groups in terms of playing
on the computers was significant, (χ2(2)=14.12,
p<0.005). Children helping with the household chores
were examined as a function of living in urban and
rural areas and statistically significant differences were
found. In the late enrollment group, children living in
the rural areas (12,4%) were helping with household
chores more than those living in urban areas (6.9%),
(χ2(1)=8.54, p<0.005). As can be expected, in the rural
living areas (7.7%), more children were helping with
the garden or the work in the field than in the urban
areas (2%), (χ2(1)=17.78, p<0.001). Examination
of rural and urban differences did not reveal any
statistically significant differences for the following
variables: children receive school related knowledge,
children taking care of a sick person at home, children
helping with the work in the place where families go
for seasonal migrant work and attending kindergarten.
When whether children engage in activities like
painting or music as a function of whether they lived
in urban or rural areas, it was found that more urban
children (30.4%) than rural children (23.9%) in the
late enrollment group engaged in such activities. These
differences were statistically significant, (χ2(1)=4.86,
p<0.05).
by living in urban or rural areas (%)
disaggregated by living in urban or rural
areas (%)
areas (%)
Figure 56. Helping with the work in the place
the families go to work as seasonal workers
areas (%)
155
Figure 57. Child attending kindergarten
areas (%)
3.15.3. Frequency of the activities the
children engage in during a
typical day
3.15.3.1. Late enrollment group
In the late enrollment group, participants were asked
to report how often their children engaged in the
activities they were asked using a scale ranging from
1 to 5. In this Likert scale rating, 1 indicates Never, 2
indicates Rarely, 3 means Sometimes, 4 means Often
and 5 means Always. Parental reports suggested that
playing was an activity that children spent most of
their time engaged in (M=4.40, SD=0.85). Following
this were educational activities, (M=2.10, SD=1.33),
and engaging in painting or music, (M=1.83, SD=1.23).
Activities outside of playing seem to be very rarely or
never done by the majority of the children as it can
seen when the average points attributed to each of
them are closely examined. Parents reported that
among the activities children engage in “learning
things related to school” seem to be also done rarely.
As these responses show, children in general spend
156
Figure 58. Child engaging in painting and music
activities disaggregated by living in urban or
rural areas (%)
their time without receiving any direction and without
any preparation for school.
3.15.3.2. No enrollment group
Parents of children who are still not enrolled in
school were asked to report which activities their
children engaged in. In this group as well, the most
often repeated activity was to play at home or in the
streets, (M=3.96, SD=0.13) followed by looking after
siblings, (M=1.67, SD=1.02), doing things like making
music or painting, (M=1.64, SD=0.97) and helping with
household chores, (M=1.63, SD=0.97).
Table 105. Descriptive statistics for the frequency of activities children engage in
during a typical day in 2007-2008 academic year when they were out of school in
the late enrollment group (Late enrollment)
N
Average
Standard
Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
949
1,49
0,93
1
5
947
4,40
0,85
1
5
949
1,11
0,53
1
5
Selling things in the street like tissues
949
1,01
0,16
1
5
947
1,34
0,73
1
5
Helping with the work in the garden/field
946
1,18
0,52
1
5
Learning things related to school
908
2,10
1,33
1
5
947
1,02
0,22
1
5
Helping with the work where we go to
work as seasonal workers
949
1,10
0,39
1
5
949
1,33
1,01
1
5
Engaging in activities like art
(painting), music
945
1,83
1,23
1
5
157
Always
Often
Total
Frequency
%
61,2
20,9
9,7
6
2,2
134
100
6
5,2
14,2
36,6
38,1
134
100
98,5
0,7
0,7
-
-
134
100
100
-
-
-
-
134
100
65,7
11,2
19,4
2,2
1,5
134
100
Helping with the work in the garden/field
79,9
9
9
2,2
-
134
100
74,4
4,5
14,3
3,8
3
133
100
94
1,5
3,7
0,7
-
134
100
83,6
6,7
8,2
1,5
-
134
100
1,5
0,7
1,5
134
100
19,4
5,2
-
134
100
Learning things to prepare for the
education in schools (Counting, the
alphabet, etc.)
Helping take care of someone sick at
home
Help with the work where we migrate
for seasonal work
Engaging in activities like art (painting),
music
96,3
65,7
9,7
158
Sometimes
Never
No Enrollment
(Percentage)
Rarely
Table 106. Frequency of the activities the children engage in during a typical day in
the no enrollment group*
Table 107. Descriptive statistics for the frequency of activities children engage in
during a typical day in 2007-2008 academic year when they were out of school in
the no enrollment group
N
Average
Standard
Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
134
1,67
1,02
1
5
134
3,96
1,13
1
5
134
1,02
0,19
1
3
Selling things in the street like
tissues
134
1,00
0,00
1
1
134
1,63
0,97
1
5
134
1,34
0,74
1
4
133
1,56
1,06
1
5
134
1,11
0,47
1
4
134
1,28
0,68
1
4
134
1,11
0,60
1
5
134
1,64
0,97
1
4
Helping with the work in the garden/
field
Learning things to prepare for the
education in schools
Helping take care of someone sick
at home
Help with the work where we go to
work as seasonal workers
Engaging in activities like art
(painting), music
159
3.15.4. Examination of children’s
activities during a typical day as
a function of different variables
in the no enrollment group
How children spend their typical day when they were
out of school was examined for boys and girls in
the no enrollment group as well. Examination of sex
differences revealed statistically significant results.
Findings suggested that in this group, 26,2% of the
girls and 4% of the boys were looking after their
younger siblings, (χ2(1)=10.50, p<0.005). There was
no statistically significant difference between boys and
girls in terms of selling things in the streets such. An
examination of the number of boys and girls helping
with household chores revealed that 32,1% of the girls
and 8% of the girls were doing such tasks at home.
This difference between boys and girls was statistically
significant, (χ2(1)=10.28, p<0.005). suggesting
that there were more girls than boys who would do
household chores and help around the house in the
unenrolled children’s group. Examination of child sex
differences in terms of helping in the field/garden,
learning school related subjects, looking after someone
by child sex (%)
160
sick at home, helping with the work where the family
migrates to do seasonal work, attending kindergarten/
preschool, engaging in painting and music did not
reveal any statistically significant results.
Next, analyses were conducted to determine whether
there were differences between urban and rural
children in the unenrolled group in terms of various
activities children engage in during a typical day.
Findings revealed a statistically significant differences
for looking after younger siblings, (χ2(1)=4.89, p<0.05),
indicating that more children in rural areas (25.8%),
were looking after their children than in urban areas
(11.1%). Examination of how many rural and urban
children played in the streets, played computer
games, helping with household chores, learning
education related materials, taking care of someone
sick at home, helping with work in the place where
the family goes for seasonal migrant work, attending
kindergarten, and engaging in activities such as
painting and music did not reveal any significant
differences.
3.16. How influential were the
factors contributing to
children’s enrollment in
school in 2007-2008
academic year
3.16.1. Late enrollment group
In this group, various challenges or limitations were
reported to be somewhat influential for not enrolling
Figure 62. Helping with household chores
children in school. Thinking that their children were
too young for school and if they kept the children out
of school for another year their children would be
better prepared for school was also reported to be an
important factor contributing to delaying children’s
enrollment. Other factors such as safety problems
at school or transportation problems, or helping the
family with various chores at home were also reported
(Table 108).
161
It was
somewhat
influential
It was not
influential
37,9
26,8
13,8
7,4
14,1
958
100
18,9
36,3
20,1
5,3
19,4
950
100
9,3
16,4
28,5
7,9
37,9
956
100
6,1
23,5
18,3
7,9
44,3
958
100
3,2
5,5
14,2
21,9
55,3
951
100
2,7
2,6
1,8
18,5
74,4
953
100
2,3
6,4
17,7
14,3
59,3
955
100
1,9
3,4
12,0
21,6
61,0
957
100
1,0
0,5
6,7
14,4
77,3
958
100
0,9
6,3
11,6
22,8
58,4
956
100
Last year there were security problems in
the road to school
Last year there was no school where we
lived
Last year there were security problems at
the school
We wanted the child to go to school with
the sibling who is a year younger
Last year the child was supposed to help
with the work in the field / garden
We had just moved here last year, so
we were unable to register the child to
school
The child did not want to separate from
the mother last year
0,9
1,6
4,3
19,4
73,8
957
100
0,7
1,0
3,0
17,6
77,5
953
100
0,7
0,7
3,8
19,0
75,8
955
100
0,5
0,7
1,3
16,6
80,9
958
100
0,3
0,8
7,2
17,9
73,7
953
100
0,3
0,3
2,9
16,1
80,3
956
100
0,2
0,8
5,9
17,1
76,0
956
100
0,2
0,1
1,7
19,6
78,4
957
100
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in school last
year
We thought the child was too young to
enroll in school last year
We felt that the child would have a lot of
difficulties because of being physically
weak and skinny
We thought the child would develop better
and be more successful in school if we
waited another year
Child did not want to attend school the
previous year
Child was either sick last year or was getting
sick too often
Last year, transportation opportunities to
school were very limited
We migrated to somewhere else as a family
to work as seasonal workers
The child had to work and earn money
last year
162
It was not
influential
at all
It was
influential
It was very
influential
Table 108. How influential were the factors contributing to children’s enrollment
in schools in 2007-2008 academic year in the late enrollment group*
(Late enrollment) (%)
Total**
Frequency
%
It was
influential
It was
somewhat
influential
0,1
0,3
4,8
20,7
74,1
958
100
0,1
0,2
0,2
16,7
82,8
958
100
Last year, a family member passed away
around the time school started
0,1
0,2
0,3
15,0
84,3
958
100
Last year, the child had to take care of
somebody sick in the household
0,0
0,1
0,6
15,1
84,2
959
100
0,0
0,1
2,5
17,8
79,6
956
100
Last year the child needed to help at
home with the housework (washing,
cleaning, looking after younger siblings,
etc.)
Last year, around the time school started,
a family member fell ill
It was not
influential
It was not
influential
at all
It was
very
influential
Table 108 Continued
Total**
Frequency
%
3.16.2. No enrollment group
Of those 134 parents in this group who responded
to this question, 120 of them reported that financial
difficulties or limitations were among the reasons
that prevented their children from enrolling in school.
Following this were transportation problems, safety,
thinking that the child was too young, and the child
having a disability were listed as reasons contributing
to children not enrolling in school the previous year in
the unenrolled group (Table 109).
the previous year (Table 110). Results showed that
financial difficulties were rated as more important
for not enrolling their children in school in the late
enrollment group. Following this were factors such
as thinking the child was too young the previous
year for school, and thinking that the child’s physical
development was too underdeveloped and the child
would develop better if they waited for a year listed as
more important factors contributing to not sending the
child to school.
3.16.3. Value indexes of the reasons that
were identified as factors
contributing to children not
enrolling in school the previous
year
3.16.3.1 Late enrollment group
Participants were asked to rate how influential were
the reasons that they listed as factors contributing
to why they did not enroll their children in school
163
It was
influential
It was
somewhat
influential
It was not
influential
It was not
influential
at all
It was very
influential
Table 109. How influential were the factors contributing to children’s no enrollment in
schools in 2007-2008 academic year in the late enrollment group*
(No enrollment) (%)
Frequency
46,3
29,9
13,4
0,7
9,7
134
100
13,3
15,6
16,3
13,3
41,5
135
100
13,4
3,7
0,7
15,7
66,4
134
100
12,6
15,6
14,1
14,1
43,7
135
100
5,9
14,1
34,8
14,1
31,1
135
100
Child did not want to go to school
5,9
7,4
18,5
23,7
44,4
135
100
Child was too young
5,2
20,1
33,6
10,4
30,6
134
100
The child did not want to separate from the
mother last year
It was not appropriate for the child to attend
school because of family beliefs and traditions
According to religious beliefs of my family it was wrong for the child to attend
school
0,7
1,5
12,6
20,0
65,2
135
100
0,7
0,0
3,7
20,9
74,6
134
100
0,7
0,0
3,7
19,4
76,1
134
100
For reasons related to teachers
0,8
0,0
0,0
13,6
85,6
132
100
There were safety issues at school
0,0
5,3
8,3
19,5
66,9
133
100
We thought that the child could find jobs
even if the child went to school
Child helping around at home (doing the
dishes, looking after siblings etc.)
0,0
3,0
1,5
20,9
74,6
134
100
0,0
2,2
6,7
19,3
71,9
135
100
Girls don’t need to go to school
0,0
3,4
6,7
24,7
65,2
89
100
0,0
1,5
2,2
21,5
74,8
135
100
0,0
1,5
2,2
20,7
75,6
135
100
Our financial conditions were not sufficient
Transportation to school was problematic
Could not go to school because of illness/
disability
School was far from home
Child was physically immature, skinny and
underdeveloped
Other families around not sending their
children to school
Child was not toilet trained to go by
himself/herself
164
Total**
%
It was
somewhat
influential
It was not
influential
0,0
1,5
4,5
21,8
72,2
133
100
0,0
1,1
6,4
26,6
66,0
94
100
0,0
0,7
1,5
19,4
78,4
134
100
0,0
0,0
6,7
19,3
74,1
135
100
Child needed to work in the field/garden
0,0
0,0
10,4
19,3
70,4
135
100
Schools teaching children in mixed-sex
classrooms
We believe that besides learning to read
and write, nothing taught at school was
worthwhile
Child was going to get married anyway,
there was no need for school
Child had an arranged marriage (“beşik
kertmesi” the promise at the cradle) and
the family the child was going to marry
into did not approve school
In order for her brother to attend school,
the female child was not send to school
The child would learn how to read and
write during military service, so there was
no need to attend school
0,0
0,0
0,7
22,2
77,0
135
100
0,0
0,0
3,0
19,3
77,8
135
100
0,0
0,0
3,0
23,0
74,1
135
100
0,0
0,0
0,0
20,0
80,0
90
100
0,0
0,0
0,0
19,1
80,9
89
100
0,0
0,0
0,0
11,9
88,1
59
100
We had just moved here last year, so
we were unable to register the child to
school
We did not believe female children needed
to go to school
Even if the child went to school, the child
was still going to live in the village
Our child needed to work and earn money
instead of attending school
It was not
influential
at all
It was
influential
It was very
influential
Table 109. Continued
Total**
Frequency
%
3.16.3.2. No enrollment group
Parents whose children were still unenrolled in schools
were asked to report how some of the predetermined
factors contributed to not enrolling children in school.
Parental ratings indicated that it was clear that
financial limitations were a significant factor for
parents to not enroll their children in school. Following
this were reasons such as thinking the child was too
young, the child was physically underdeveloped and
the school was too far from the home.
165
enrollment
Ratings
166
We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in school last year
3,67
The child had to work and earn money last year
1,24
Last year there were security problems at the school
1,32
Last year there were security problems in the road to school
1,36
1,78
1,79
3,30
Last year the child needed to help at home with the housework (washing, cleaning, looking after
younger siblings, etc.)
1,32
Last year the child was supposed to help with the work in the field / garden
1,36
Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail, we felt the child would be the downtrodden
one
2,51
1,69
1,64
1,41
1,18
Last year, a family member passed away around the time school started
1,17
One of the close friends of the child passed away right around the time the schools started
1,14
Last year, the child had to take care of somebody sick in the household
1,17
We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work as seasonal workers
1,34
1,24
We wanted the child to go to school with the sibling who was a year younger
1,23
Thought the child would develop better and be more successful in school if we waited another year
2,39
Last year there was no school where we lived
1,30
1,23
1,32
In order for her brother to attend school first, we did not send our daughter to school
1,14
We did not want the teacher that was assigned last year
1,10
3.16.4. Regional issues and problems and
not enrolling in school on time
In the focus group meetings, during the discussion
of the issues that are unique problems of the region,
participants talked about how Turkish is not a native
language for some of the children in the region
and they learn Turkish after they start school. The
discussants emphasized the importance of language
and some stated that some of these children have
had some negative attitudes toward school or felt shy
or embarrassed to go to school because they did not
speak Turkish. One particular participant argued that
it was not always directly related to not enrolling in
schools on time, rather even if these children enrolled
in schools they wasted their time in schools without
being able to understand anything.
Although participants emphasized the importance
of traditional and religious beliefs, some discussants
reported that these religious and traditional beliefs
were not as influential as other factors. Discussants
argued that traditional and religious beliefs were more
influential in controlling the lives of girls and their
education. In fact, as the girls get older, mature and
develop, effects of these elements on the lives of
girls were becoming even more detrimental. Thus, as
a result of the effects of such beliefs, if the families
were going to enroll their daughters in schools, they
would want their daughters to go to school earlier and
be out of the school system before puberty.
Participants in focus group meetings concluded that,
although these factors were contributing to children’s,
particularly girls’ unenrollment in school, in some
families these factors were influential in familial
decisions to enroll their children in schools early.
3.17. Being informed of the
financial support state
provides for enrolling girls in
schools
Being informed of the financial support the state
provides was 47,5% in the late enrollment group,
whereas in the unenrolled group this rate was 34,7%.
As the numbers indicate the levels of not being
informed of such state support was very high in both
groups. This could indicate a possible limitation in the
state’s end to get the information known to all the
families at risk.
Figure 63. Whether parents were informed of the financial support state provides for enrolling
girls in schools (%)
167
enrollment
Ratings
168
Our financial conditions were not sufficient
4,02
We thought that the child could find jobs even if the child went to school
1,33
Our child needed to work and earn money instead of attending school
1,33
It was not appropriate for the child to attend school because of family beliefs and traditions
1,31
According to religious beliefs of my family it was wrong for the child to attend school
1,30
Child was too young
2,59
There were safety issues at school
1,52
School was far from home
2,39
Transportation to school was problematic
2,46
Child did not want to go to school
2,07
Child helping around at home (doing the dishes, looking after siblings etc.)
1,39
Child needed to work in the field/garden
1,40
Could not go to school because of illness/disability
1,82
Other families around not sending their children to school
1,30
Child was physically immature, skinny and underdeveloped
2,50
We did not believe female children needed to go to school
1,43
Boys and girls go to school in mixed classrooms
1,24
We believe that besides learning to read and write, nothing taught at school was worthwhile
1,25
Even if the child went to school, the child was still going to live in the village
1,25
Child was going to get married anyway, there was no need for school
1,29
Child was not toilet trained to go by himself/herself
1,30
1,53
1,35
Girls don’t need to go to school
1,48
Child had an arranged marriage (“beşik kertmesi” the promise at the cradle) and the family the child
was going to marry into did not approve school
1,20
In order for her brother to attend school, the female child was not send to school
1,19
The child would learn how to read and write during military service, so there was no need to attend
school
1,12
For reasons related to teachers
1,17
3.17.1. Examination of being informed of
the financial support state
provides for girls’ education as a
function of different variables
in Gümüşhane and 1.4% in Şırnak. These differences
among the provinces were statistically significant,
(χ2(9)=129.04, p<0.001). Bitlis had the most parents
who knew about the state support provided for girls’
education and Şırnak had the highest number of
parents who were not informed of such state support
Examination of the rates of being informed of the
financial support for girls’ education in different
provinces revealed interesting results. It was as high
as 78.6% in Bitlis and 69.5% in Ağrı and as low as 6.7%
for girls’ education disaggregated by the province that they live in (%)
(Late enrollment)
Total
No, I was not
informed
Yes, I was informed
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Ağrı
36
30,5
82
69,5
118
100
Bitlis
9
21,4
33
78,6
42
100
Diyarbakır
82
43,9
105
56,1
187
100
Gümüşhane
14
93,3
1
6,7
15
100
Hakkâri
14
51,9
13
48,1
27
100
Muş
43
71,7
17
28,3
60
100
Osmaniye
37
64,9
20
35,1
57
100
Şanlıurfa
122
54,5
102
45,5
224
100
Şırnak
70
98,6
1
1,4
71
100
Van
76
48,4
81
51,6
157
100
Late Enrollment: χ2: 129,036, degrees of freedom:9 p=0,000
Examination of how parents were informed of state
support for girls’ education as a function of fathers’
occupation, it was found that those who reported
themselves to be in administrative positions all knew
about this. Examination of the income levels revealed
that those who earned 751 TL and above had the
fewest number of parents who were informed of the
state support available. There was not much difference
for the other income levels. In addition, urban-rural
differences were examined for the group of unenrolled
children. The findings revealed that those who lived in
urban areas (66.7%) were slightly more informed than
those who lived in rural areas (63.6%). (See Figures 64
& 65).
169
for girls’ education disaggregated by the fathers’ occupation
(Late enrollment)
No, I was not
informed
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Farming-livestock
79
64,2
44
35,8
123
100
Retired, not working
4
57,1
3
42,9
7
100
Small business/trainer
15
50,0
15
50,0
30
100
Civil servant
14
60,9
9
39,1
23
100
Operates medium/large scale operations, employer
2
66,7
1
33,3
3
100
Self-employed/Freelancer
69
62,7
41
37,3
110
100
Skilled worker
29
61,7
18
38,3
47
100
93
35,5
169
64,5
262
100
Administrator
0
0,0
1
100
1
100
Seasonal worker in the city they live in
4
57,1
3
42,9
7
100
Travelling to other cities for seasonal
work
17
60,7
11
39,3
28
100
Owns estate
26
53,1
23
46,9
49
100
Unemployed
132
56,7
101
43,3
233
100
3
60,0
2
40,0
5
100
Student
170
Yes, I was informed
for girls’ education disaggregated by the total incomes of the families
(Late enrollment)
No, I am not informed
Yes, I am informed
Total
Financial support
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
200 TL and below
97
49,5
99
50,5
196
100
201 - 300 TL
69
52,3
63
47.7
132
100
301 - 400 TL
78
53,4
68
46,6
146
100
401 - 500 TL
78
56,5
60
43,5
138
100
501 - 600 TL
60
45,8
71
54,2
131
100
601 - 750 TL
35
45,5
42
54,5
77
100
751 TL and above
77
63,1
45
36,9
122
100
Figure 64. Being informed of textbooks being
given free of charge disaggregated by living
in rural and urban areas
Figure 65. Examination of being informed of
the financial support state provides for girls’
education disaggregated by living in urban
and rural areas
171
3.17.2. Examination of receiving the
financial support state provides
for girls’ education
3.17.3. Contributions of financial supports
received from the state to
enrollment of children in schools
Those who stated that they were informed of state
financial support for girls’ education were asked to
report whether they were receiving support. Of those
who were asked, 44.2% of reported receiving support.
In the late enrollment group, when this was examined
as a function of living in rural or urban areas, it was
found that 48.7% of the families living in rural areas
and 41% of the families living in the urban areas were
receiving financial support.
Participants were asked whether aid received was
influential in decisions to enroll their children in
schools, and 61.7% of the participants indicated that
it was influential in their decision making process. This
finding indicates that it is important to continue to
provide assistance.
Examination of different provinces revelaed that
most parents who took advantage of state support
lived in Hakkâri (See Appendix Table 42). Having
received state support for girls’ education varied as
a function of family income levels. Those who took
advantage of this support were most likely to have an
income between 301 – 400 TL and 501 – 600 TL. This
difference was statistically significant, (χ2(6)=25.466,
p<0.05) (See Appendix Table 43). Distribution of
receiving state support disaggregated by father’s
occupation can be found in Table 115.
Those who stated that they did not know the state
provided financial support for families who were asked
to report whether they would enroll their daughters in
schools if they were informed of such state support. Of
those related participants, 94,4% stated their answers
positively. As it was discussed earlier, it becomes
clear that the news about such supports need to be
delivered to families more effectively. In fact, this
one factor seemed to be singlehandedly solving the
problem of not enrolling children in school for the
families in the late enrollment group who were eligible
to receive such a support the previous year.
Figure 66. Examination of receiving the financial support state provides
for girls’ education (Late enrollment, Base: 455 people)
(This question was asked to those who reported that they were
172
Table 115. Examination of receiving financial support the state provides for girls’
education disaggregated by fathers’ occupation (Late Enrollment)
No, I am not informed
Yes, I am informed
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Farming / livestock
30
68,2
14
31,8
44
100
Retired, does not work
3
100
0
0,0
3
100
13
86,7
2
13,3
15
100
7
77,8
2
22,2
9
100
Operates medium/large scale
operations, employer
1
100
0
0,0
1
100
Self-employed/freelancer
21
51,2
20
48,8
41
100
Skilled worker
12
66,7
6
33,3
18
100
89
52,7
80
47,3
169
100
Administrator
1
100
0
0,0
1
100
2
66,7
1
33,3
3
100
7
63,6
4
36,4
11
100
Owns estate
18
78,3
5
21,7
23
100
Unemployed
41
40,6
60
59,4
101
100
Student
1
50,0
1
50,0
2
100
Seasonal worker in the city they
live in
work
In focus group meetings, discussants often
emphasized the fact that financial support helps
families enroll their children in school. For example,
they indicated conditional cash transfers helped
families whose difficulties in sending their children to
schools were primarily related to their finances. This,
they believed, helped families send their children in
school on time as well. Participants reported that they
themselves directly witnessed mothers bringing their
daughters to school to collect money given through
the program of conditional cash transfer. On the other
hand, it was also discussed that not all parents in
all the provinces knew about this program, and as a
result, children who could be in schools because of
this program are unfortunately out of schools because
they do not know there is such a program.
173
Table 116. Type of aid received from the state* (Late enrollment, Base: 201 people)
(This question was asked to those who received the financial support state provides to
those who enroll their children in school.)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
Cash
109
45
54,2
Text books
82
33,9
40,8
CCT (Conditional Cash Transfer)
39
16,1
19,4
Pants and clothing items
5
2,1
2,5
Scholarship
3
1,2
1,5
School bags
2
0,8
1,0
Notebooks
2
0,8
1,0
242
100
120,4
Total
Figure 67. Whether these aids were influential in the child enrolling in school in
2007-2008 academic year (Late enrollment, Base: 188 people)
174
Figure 68. Whether being informed of this aid contribute to beliefs about sending
girls in schools (Late enrollment, Base: 36 people)
Another important finding that came out of semistructured interviews is related to the fee some
schools are taking during the registration period
to enroll children. Even though officially there is no
registration fee and schools cannot legally take such
payments from parents, participants indicated that
schools continue to take money from the parents
under the name of donation. Participants stated
that this really hurts a lot of the families who are
experiencing financial difficulties and cannot send
their children to schools because of these difficulties.
Moreover, it was also reported that schools take this
money from some parents while they don’t take such
a payment from others, simply based on arbitrary
procedures or personal preferences. This influences
the families’ perceptions of schools negatively
children in school. Examination of the child related
factors contributing positively to decisions about
enrolling children in schools, 31,6% of the families in
the unenrolled group reported that financial factors
had prevented them from enrolling their children,
and their decisions were unrelated to factors related
to children themselves. As a result, as long there is
no change in their financial situations, it is difficult to
determine what will happen to these children and if
they will ever go to school. Of those parents, 21,8%
reported that they were going to enroll their children in
school anyway the upcoming year, however, it is also
difficult to determine how sincere these families were
in their answers since they were already going to enroll
their children in school after keeping their children out
of school for two years in a row.
3.17.4. Factors that would contribute to
families enrolling their children in
school in the near future
Parents were asked to speculate on what they would
need to see have changed in terms of opportunities
of living conditions in order for them to enroll their
175
When parents were asked what types of improvements
or changes they would want to see in order for them
to enroll their children, 55,2% of the participants
participants emphasized the need to improve their
economic situation.Meanwhile, 12,8% of the parents
reported that if their children’s health improved they
would enroll their children in school. When these
answers were examined, it appears when some of the
more structural problems are resolved, great progress
will be made to solve the main problem of children not
enrolling in schools on time.
Table 117. Factors that would contribute to parents enrolling their children in
school* (No enrollment, Base: 133 people)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
42
30,9
31,6
29
21,3
21,8
17
12,5
12,8
17
12,5
12,8
6
4,4
4,5
I will enroll my child in school if the child is interested
6
4,4
4,5
I will enroll my child in school if my child’s development is well
6
4,4
4,5
If my child receives a scholarship
4
2,9
3
4
2,9
3
2
1,5
1,5
This year we are going to send the child with the child’s sibling
1
0,7
0,8
If they provide lessons for hearing impaired, I will enroll my child
in school
1
0,7
0,8
The child is attending school for the children with disabilities
1
0,7
0,8
If there is a school bus then I will send my child to school
1
0,7
0,8
Nothing about the child needs to change, if they extend the registration period, I will send my child to school
1
0,7
0,8
136
100
102,3
Not enrolling the child in school is unrelated to my child, we could
not, because of financial difficulties
Nothing related to my child needs to change, I will enroll my child
in school anyway
I will enroll my child in school if my child’s health get better
I will enroll my child in school if they open a school closer to
where we live
I will not enroll my child in school because of the child’s disability
Nothing with my child needs to change. The actual age of the
child is older for primary school, so we cannot enroll the child in
school
Nothing with the child needs to change the child’s father does not
want to enroll the child in school
Total
176
Table 118. Expected changes in the living conditions that would contribute to parents
enrolling their children in school on time* (No enrollment, Base: 134 people)
(Improvements in the financial situation, a moving to a new place place, head of the household
finding a new job/or change jobs etc.)
Frequency
Will enroll the child in school when my financial situation
improves
If I can change my job/If I get a job, then I will enroll my child in
school
47
32,2
35,1
26
17,8
19,4
16
11
11,9
14
9,6
10,4
14
9,6
10,4
8
5,5
6
6
4,1
4,5
4
2,7
3
3
2,1
2,2
3
2,1
2,2
1
0,7
0,7
1
0,7
0,7
I am not thinking of sending my child to school no matter what
1
0,7
0,7
Nothing about our living conditions need to change, if the child
develops enough, then I will enroll the child in school
1
0,7
0,7
Attending school for the disabled
1
0,7
0,7
146
100
109
I am going to enroll my child in school this year anyway
Not enrolling the child in school has nothing to do with our living
conditions, if the child’s health improves, then I will send the
child to school
I will send the child to school if they open a school somewhere
closer
It has nothing to do with our living conditions, I cannot send my
child to school because of the child’s disability
Nothing about living conditions need to change, if there is a
school bus, then I will send my child to school
When we move back from the village, I will enroll the child in
school
Nothing about living conditions, we cannot enroll the child in
school because the child is too old for primary school
If the child is interested, then I will send the child to school
If they do not take registration fee to enroll children in school,
then I will
Nothing about our living conditions need to change, the father is
not interested in enrolling the child in school
Total
177
Table 119. Expectations from the state to enroll children in school on time*
(No enrollment)
Frequency
%
Provide scholarships
42
32,8
Not just textbooks, provide free school materials
Abolish the fees schools take for registration when we are enrolling our children in school
I cannot enroll my child in school because of the child’s disability, the state
does not have to do anything
Opening a school closer to where we live
42
32,8
21
16.4
13
10.2
3
2.3
Nothing needed, I will enroll my child in school anyway
2
1.6
The state does not have to do anything, I am not going to send my child to
school
2
1.6
Child is not interested in school
1
0.8
Resolve transportation problems
1
0.8
If financial support is provided, I would enroll the child in school for children
with disabilities
1
0.8
128
100
Total
When families were asked earlier to report what
the most important reasons were for not enrolling
their children in schools two years in a row in the
unenrolled group, financial difficulties and access and
transportation to schools were the most important
reasons. Similar findings emerged when families
were asked to speculate on what they expected from
the state in order for them to enroll their children
in schools. Of those respondents who answered
the question, almost all of them reported that they
expected financial support from the state, or they
hoped the registration fees would no longer be asked
for, or the schools would not be too far to reach. The
responses of the participants living both in urban and
rural areas were remarkably similar. Of those parents
who answered the question in the unenrolled group,
58,5% of them reported that they are thinking about
enrolling their children in school the upcoming year.
The remaining 17,3% reported that they would enroll
178
their children in school even later, and the remaining
23,7% reported that they were not going to enroll their
children in school at all. The first group of people who
reported they would enroll their children in school
reported that they would do it because they were
finally convinced that it was time their children went to
school, because they would move down to the district,
and the child was finally interested. The second group
that reported they would enroll their children in school
later in the future reported that if the family received
financial support, or if their children’s health improved
they would eventually enroll their children in school.
The third group who stated that they would not enroll
their children in school at all reported reasons such
as that their finances were not good, their children
had a disability or their children were not interested in
school.
Figure 69. Whether the parents are interested in enrolling their children in school in the
unenrolled group (Late enrollment, Base: 135 people)
w
not
w
w
not
Parents who claimed that they would enroll their
children in school the upcoming year were asked to
report the factors that contributed to them making
such a decision. Of those parents, 51,9% reported
that their children were finally at the age to enroll in
school, 15.6% reported moving to the district, 5.2%
reported improvements in their financial situation,
and 6.5% reported that they were receiving financial
support from the state.
179
Table 120. Factors influencing the decision to enroll children in school
the following year* (No enrollment, Base: 77 people)
(This question was asked to those who indicated that they would enroll their
children in school the following year.)
Frequency
The child was not at the right age for school
40
50,0
51,9
Because we moved to downtown/Returned from the village
12
15,0
15.6
Because the child wanted it
6
7,5
7,8
4
5,0
5,2
Because the child’s health got better
4
5,0
5,2
Because the child needs to get education
3
3,8
3,9
Because the state provides scholarship
3
3,8
3,9
Because the state will pay for the expenses
2
2,5
2,6
Just having a school is enough, I already want to send my child
to school
2
2,5
2,6
Because the registration fee is removed
1
1,3
1,3
Because the child’s sibling is also starting school
1
1,3
1,3
If there is a special education teacher
1
1,3
1,3
Because education is mandated
1
1,3
1,3
Total
80
100
103,9
Those 19 parents, who reported that they would enroll
their children in schools sometime in the future were
180
asked when they were thinking about enrolling their
children in school. Results are listed below.
Table 121. When would those parents who considering enrolling their children in
school in the future would enroll their children in school* (No enrollment)
(This question was asked to those who stated that they were considering enrolling their children in
school.)
Frequency
%
If our financial situation improves
10
52,6
If financial support is provided
4
21,1
If the child health improves
3
15,8
If a nearby school is built by next year
1
5,3
If financial support is provided, I would send the child to a school for children
with disabilities
1
5,3
Total
19
100
The answers of 32 parents in the unenrolled group
who stated that they would never enroll their children
in schools were examined and it was found that again
financial difficulties (34,4%) and disability (28,1%)
were the main reasons.
When the parents in group of unenrolled children
were asked whether they knew that the state gives
free textbooks to all primary school children, of 126
respondents, 98 of them reported that they were
informed of such state support and the remaining
28 reported that they did not. Those who reported
that they did not know the state was providing free
textbooks were asked if they knew this information if
this would help them enroll their children in school,
and 21 out of 24 parents reported that they would.
Figure 70. Being informed of free textbook distribution of the state for primary school
children (No enrollment, Base: 126 people)
181
3.17.5. Not enrolling in school on time,
transportation to school and
problems experienced in schools
Qualitative research findings indicate that some of the
most important factors contributing to children not
enrolling in school on time were limited resources,
overcrowded classrooms and teachers who are too
busy with everything they have to do at school being
unable to screen and identify children who do not
enroll in schools on time. According to the teacher
participants, student screening work is not completed
from one central location and this causes difficulties
with completing the work and collecting reliable
data. Participants reported that if the screening work
improved and the children who do not enroll schools
even though they are at the legal age to attend
school are identified, they believed that the cases
of late enrollment would be minimized. At the same
time, when what the teachers discussed about the
limitations of the schools are considered, it would be
difficult to assume that simple monitoring would be
enough to fight and eliminate children not enrolling in
school on time. Bussing children to schools or having
children go to schools in boarding schools brings very
serious complications and difficulties for the families.
Particularly, those who live in villages and girls seem
to be more negatively influenced. As a result, providing
children the opportunity to go to schools in their
own villages would be a very important step to take.
Considering that in families, especially in the ones
with many children, when families are in a situation to
choose a child to send to school because of financial
difficulties, it appears that the girls are the one who
are negatively affected by this choice, it is important
to provide financial support to these families.
In focus group meetings, one of the most important
reasons for late school enrollment was reported to be
the fact that the teachers are left alone in the region
in either overcrowded classrooms or in classrooms
where multiple grades get education in one classroom
with one teacher. Because of limited resources the
teachers are unable to go around in the neighborhood
and identify which eligible children are out of school.
Besides, some participants reported that the teachers
would not even want to simply bring more children in
182
when they had no resources to accommodate even the
ones who were already in schools. It was discussed
that perhaps having a committee to do the screening
work would ease the situation. The participants
concluded that the screening of these children was
not done sufficiently.
Another important factor contributing to children
not enrolling in schools on time was discussed to be
YIBOs. Participants reported that YIBOs were not built
in very central locations and were very far from where
the families lived and families sent their children,
particularly girls, to these schools at least a year
later. Schools’ being spread apart was seen to be
an important problem and it was also reported that
families did not want their daughters in either the
bussing system or in YIBOs. It was emphasized that
this issue was more of a problem for families who
had more children going to school at the same time.
Having to do this was perceived as an extra load of
work by the families and they were simply postponing
the enrollment of a child for the following year. This
problem was less of an issue in the villages that were
close to districts and central districts.
In addition to this, constant changes in the TSI’s
address registration system was also causing a lot of
problems. The reason for this was that TSI would make
all the address changes in late December, however,
the families would continue to change their addresses
after that time and would be difficult to find. The
discussants argued that it would be important to work
in coordination with citizenship bureaus.
Participants emphasized repeatedly that the families
often go to schools to enroll their children, but their
children are denied school enrollment because of the
overcrowded classrooms.
During the qualitative interviews and focus group
meetings, it was clearly emphasized that the various
efforts the state makes to get children to enroll in
school at the age determined for school enrollments
were helpful. Although the view that these efforts
were helpful was pronounced, the majority of the
participants emphasized that these efforts were not
enough and were very limited (80,6%). When the
reasons participants provided for why these efforts
were not sufficient were examined, it was found that
tradional and conservative values were very resistant
to break and this could only be overcome if economic
levels of the families were increased. For everything
to work, the participants emphasized, all the social
stakeholders needed to work together in cooperation,
works needed to put families in the center, work
needed to be done at institutional levels, and
screening and follow-up work needed to be completed
with the execution of more strict enforcement.
More discussion on these issues included increasing
the quality of the teachers, placing more value on
teaching profession and protecting them from political
ups and downs, getting the help of sociologists and
psychologists, and being in direct contact with parents
instead of relying on other vehicles such as mukhtars
were all emphasized. It was concluded that when all
these are accomplished, then more serious progress
would be made to overcome the problem of late
enrollment.
These were the factors that made the efforts o bring
very minimal positive outcomes. As a result, it was
openly stated that there needed to be a greater
and more organic contact needed to be established
between the ones that are affected by the problem
and those who are going to provide the services for
them. Hence the work needed to be more family
centered.
Reasons participants provided for why these efforts
were not sufficient were examined, it was found that
tradional and conservative values were very resistant
to break and this could only be overcome if economic
levels of the families were increased. The participants
emphasized, all the social stakeholders needed to
work together in cooperation, works needed to put
families in the center, work needed to be done at
institutional levels, and screening and follow-up work
needed to be completed with the execution of more
strict enforcement. More discussion on these issues
included increasing the quality of the teachers, placing
more value on teaching profession and protecting
them from political ups and downs, getting the help
of sociologists and psychologists, and being in direct
contact with parents instead of relying on other
vehicles such as mukhtars were all emphasized. It was
concluded that when all these are accomplished, then
more serious progress would be made to overcome
the problem of late enrollment. These were the factors
that made the efforts to bring very minimal positive
outcomes. As a result, it was openly stated that there
needed to be a greater and more organic contact
needed to be established between the ones that are
affected by the problem and those who are going to
provide the services for them. Hence the work needed
to be more family centered.
4. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Late school enrollment is a problem in the 10
provinces in this study. Children who are held out
from school may be delayed in terms of academic
skills compared to their peers. They may also have
emotional problems due to early maturation. It is
also expected that children whose school enrollment
is late will face challenges in the higher grades.
The findings regarding late school entry are quite
interesting and mixed. In more developed countries
where children have enriched early experiences, no
or little differences were found when children who
enter school by the enrollment cutoff date and those
enter school after some delay are compared. In fact,
each group seemed to have advantages in different
areas (Montz, 1985; Rabinowitz, 1989). On the other
hand, when the levels of development and living
conditions in Turkey, and especially in the provinces
included in the sample, are considered and the
research findings from other countries with similar
levels are examined, late school entry appears as a
major problem. For example, Wils (2004) conducted
research in Mozambique, a developing country, and
found that children who are late entrants have low
school achievement. Wils (2004) also concluded that
children who are late entrants are also at a greater
risk for school drop out and have a very slim chance
of obtaining higher levels of education. Families
that delay children’s school entry are different from
families who do not enroll their children. At the same
183
time, even thought there are differences, because
of the similarities between these groups in terms of
family structures and locations they live in, there are
many similarities.
4.1. Structural characteristics of
families
The families included in the research have similar
structural features. Families of children who do not
enroll in primary school on time are often from lower
socio-economic groups. Both the economic status
of the families and parents’ education levels are low.
Furthermore, when we examine the family structures
of those families with children who are late entrants
to school and those who have unenrolled children,
we found that the families of unenrolled children
are poorer and almost all of the mothers are either
uneducated or have very low levels of education.
Also, unemployment and employment with low-paid
low-skilled jobs are very common. In addition, families
living in rural areas face bigger economic challenges
than those living in urban areas. Transportation, for
example, is a more serious problem for urban families
than for rural families. As previously stated, though
they are not well represented in the sample, migrant
workers face additional problems. In the center of
Şanlıurfa province, which was within the scope of
this research, there is total of 282,936 people living
in 33 neighborhoods, and 44% of these people are
agricultural workers. Seasonal migrant workers leave
their homes starting in February, and go to 21 different
provinces and they do not come back to their homes
before November (Şimşek & Koruk, 2008).
4.2. Status of mothers and fathers
It was found that the majority of the women who were
included in this research were uneducated. There
are a higher percentage of girls in the unenrolled
group than in the late enrollment group. The girls
in the former group are likely to reach adulthood
without having had any formal schooling and will be
the mothers in the future who are uneducated and
illiterate. Years of negligence of girls and women in
the region is discusses by several researchers as
factors contributing to no or very little education
of girls and women (see, for example, Kavak and
Ergen, 2007). Religion and culture are important
184
forces influencing a family’s decision to enroll or not
enroll their children in school. As the findings of the
present research illustrate more religious families, for
example, are more likely to want girls to leave school
before puberty begins. Many of these girls will marry
at an earlier age, receive less formal schooling, have
an earlier sexual debut, and become pregnant more
frequently than girls who remain in school. As a result,
their children in the future will face similar problems
these girls are facing now. The limited education
of mothers appears as one of the most distinctive
characteristics encountered in the families of both
late school entry children and unenrolled children.
However, the situation is more problematic among
families of children who are not enrolled in school. The
lack of maternal education is a serious risk factor not
only in terms of children’s development in the present
time, but also in terms of future generations’ inability
to adequately benefit from education. When a mother
is deprived of education, it creates a serious obstacle
to the development of a “culture of education” within
the family.
In fact, although fathers have higher levels of
education than mothers, the average level of fathers’
education is still quite low. Parental level of education
has emerged as a serious factor that influences
children’s late school entry. Intervention programs
to combat late enrollment must first bring parents
to the school and afterward, these parents should be
included in school programs, should attend events and
be provided with basic education, including, Turkish
language courses.
Moreover, considering that fathers are the most
influential individuals regarding school enrollment,
the awareness activities that target fathers need to
receive greater attention. Fathers should be reached
at their frequently visited living areas and through
their social partners. These partners are mukhtars,
religious officials, and community leaders and related
others. Meanwhile, it must be ensured that these
social partners are first equipped with the right
information, act in a coordinated manner and assume
an active and responsible role. On this issue, support
of local and national media, local managers and
education officials should be sought and cooperation
should be established. Fathers are usually trying to
provide for their families with unskilled agricultural
labor and seasonal work. Unemployment rates are
very high. Considering that mothers do not generally
receive remuneration for their work, which is mainly
domestic, and fathers do not hold stable jobs, the
majority of families in this study experienced serious
financial problems. In line with previous research,
poverty and unemployment are important risk factors
for school enrollment on time. (Al Qudsi, 2003;
Fazlıoğlu & Dersan, 2004; Ravinder, 2007). As Urquiola
and Caldero (2006) demonstrated in their study of
Latin American countries, timely school enrollment
can be positively affected through job creation and the
provision of community-based trade schools. In this
study, participants indicated that financial assistance
was needed to help ensure children enroll on time. In
particular, some research participants mentioned that
conditional cash transfers encouraged mothers to bring
their children to school. This help can be provided when
families register both girls and boys on time and it can
be encouraging if the amount of financial assistance
is increased. It is also important that state makes a
better effort to disseminate the information that state
provides financial assistance to the families in need
when they enroll their children in school.
4.3. Number of children in the
family and the preferences
The number of children is relatively higher among the
group of families whose children are not registered on
time. When the number of children increases in the
family, each additional child makes it more difficult for
the other children to access educational opportunities.
When parents are forced to decide among children
to attend school, boys are usually preferred. Families
also prefer to send children to school that they
perceive as “more intelligent”. The fact that families
make distinctions between “well-developed” and
“underdeveloped” children was discussed earlier and
deserves greater study. Various studies in the world
and in Turkey have established in detail that having
too many children in the family affects the education
of children adversely (Buchmann, 2000, Rankin &
Aytaç, 2006). Therefore, it is important to raise family
awareness of “family planning” and various birth
control methods should be made more available.
4.4. Age for school enrollment and
child’s development
Many families don’t send their children to school on
time because they think their children are too young
for school, or they don’t know the actual age for
school enrollment or they miscalculated the age for
school enrollment. Most parents think that the school
age is 7, meaning, for them the starting age for school
is 84 months of age, not 72 months of age. Families
should be informed about the age for primary school
enrollment by the Ministry of National Education,
Provincial and District Directorates of Education and
school principals. Screening and monitoring should
be carried out through the collaboration of social
partners, such as MONE employees, local authorities,
health care providers and religious officials. They need
to better coordinate and allow for better exchange of
information, knowledge and ideas.
Some families were not informed about the legal age
for school enrollment by the school authorities and
it appears that even some teachers had refused to
register children because of overcrowded classrooms.
Another striking finding was that at times,
children were refused school enrollment by school
administration with an excuse that the child was too
young. The majority of the parents who wanted to
enroll their children in the previous year but were
denied, noted that they were refused by the school
officials because of their children’s age. In the focus
group meetings, teachers reported that the school
conditions, including inadequate resources and
crowded classrooms, made them feel desperate and
alone. The stress teachers experienced was often
influencing how effectively they were screening
children for school enrollment. Thus, the importance
of screening of children and the need for awarenessraising activities become more noticeable in dealing
with and diminishing the problem of children not
enrolling in school on time. Emergency measures need
to be taken and new strategies need to be developed in
this regard.
The findings of this study indicate that parents are
deprived of some very basic knowledge or have wrong
information related to school enrollment. In this
study, parents were misinformed about the age for
school entry, parent’s rights to enroll their children
even if they miss the enrollment deadline, financial
aid provided to families, and that textbooks are
provided for all students without cost. In this regard,
it is quite important to plan screening work in a way
that includes both identifying children who were
late in school enrollment and the ones who are at
risk for late school enrollment as well as increasing
awareness among families and providing accurate
information for them concerning school enrollment.
185
Giving teachers active roles in screening studies,
and having them cooperate with nurses, midwives
and health care workers will be an important move
toward ensuring timely school enrollment. In this way,
employees of the Ministry of National Education will
have the opportunity to access the information about
the children recorded by the health workers since the
birth of these children. It may prove useful to recruit
local high school and university students as volunteers
to screen children and educate parents and families.
In this regard, NGOs can also be actively involved.
However, at this point, it is important to investigate
how and when temporary seasonal workers and
seasonal migrant workers will be screened and
monitored. Particular attention needs to be paid to
the fact that awareness-raising efforts alone will
not be sufficient in dealing with the problem. While
providing awareness and knowledge for the families, it
is important to include both screening and monitoring
work that continue up through the time the child
starts school and attends classes.
As mentioned earlier, since these families are very poor,
education is not always their first priority, and in fact,
most of the time they are trying to meet their basic
needs and necessities. When they deal with these more
pressing problems they usually neglect the education of
their children. An interesting finding that supports this
conclusion is that during the focus group meetings and
semi-structured interviews with social stakeholders,
parental indifference and ignorance were emphasized.
In the interviews conducted with parents, economic
difficulties, the age of children and general problems
with the schools were more frequently emphasized.
Due to a lack of knowledge concerning school and its
processes, families, especially mothers have many
misunderstandings about primary school. For example,
many families delay school entry for fear that children
will be harassed if they enroll on-time. At this point,
school administration and teachers need to enlighten
families about the purpose of primary schools and
what is happening in the daily activities. This kind of
awareness is expected to contribute to the solution
of the problem. However, nutritional problems and
growth retardation is another factor influencing late
enrollment. This situation also continues to have
negative effects on educational process after school
enrollment (Çabuk, Soylu, Kavukçu, Türkmen &
186
Büyükgebiz, 1999; Çivi & Koruk, 2005; Jukes, 2006).
Having a weak and frail child is a source of serious
concern for families. Therefore, child screenings
should include an expert in child development. If
developmental problems are detected, necessary
support should be provided either in school or in early
childhood institutions. In cases where support is not
provided through the school, it may be necessary to
provide alternative forms of support, including, for
example, the provision of nutrition and health services
to families of undernourished, frail and sick children,
or children with developmental delays. Indeed, by
providing such services to these children at home,
it is possible for these children to develop the skills
needed for schools and, they can eventually attend
schools. When the concerns of families are not based
on any realistic problems, and these children are
capable of attending school, the people who can
convince these families to send their children to
school would be the trained professionals such as
child development experts, doctors and educators
who are evaluating the development of these children.
Concerning that these families are already poor
and have very limited opportunities, keeping these
children at home alone would not be beneficial, if they
have actual problems. Therefore, having experts see
these children and assess their development could be
the only chance these children would ever get to be
evaluated by experts. In fact, research clearly states
that the probability of encountering the problems of
child malnutrition and growth retardation is higher
in poor families (Amante, Van Houten, Grieve, Bader,
& Margules, 1977; Nails & Koruk, 2005, Gabriele &
Schettino, 2008; Jukes, 2006).
Another finding related to this situation is the
information about how these children spent their
time when they did not go to school. As the families
stated, children spent their time “playing” without any
educational activities that can support their physical,
cognitive, and social-emotional development. On the
other hand, girls in late enrollment and unenrolled
groups, especially the girls from unenrolled groups,
help with housework and do more domestic work than
do boys. There is a false belief in families in this region
that girls who held domestic responsibilities in the
early years can handle the burden when they grow up.
4.5. Health and disability status
The health status of children is another important
reason for late school enrollment. The fact that
the rate of children with disabilities is higher in the
group of unenrolled children suggests that there is
still a tremendous amount of work to do in Turkey
to integrate these children into the public school
system. What is more surprising is that, according
to the findings of this research, health problems and
disabilities these children face are not so severe that
they should prevent these children from attending
school. However, it is important to note that the
physical conditions of schools and the teaching staff
are not prepared to meet the needs and to facilitate
the attendance of such children. It appears to be
very difficult to solve this problem unless schools
and the educational system in a broader sense take
into account the individual differences of children,
adapt more “child-friendly school” views, and provide
teachers with the necessary training. Regardless, the
fact that these children have the right to education
cannot be ignored. Therefore, the issue must be
handled seriously.
4.6. School preparation activities
of unenrolled children
When carefully examined, research findings suggest
that unenrolled children did not participate in any
activities at home to prepare them for primary school;
in a sense, the time they spend outside the school
is lost time in terms of education. These children
often work in the field or care for younger siblings at
home. There are also kids working outside the family
and contributing to family finances. Usually it is girls
who take care of their brothers and sisters and help
with the housework. Watching television is the most
common activity followed by playing at home or, in the
streets.
Children not enrolled in school did not seem to engage
in any educational or learning activities, and are not
provided any direction or guidance by their parents.
There are important learning experiences that need
to be provided to these children at this critical period
in learning and development. If these skills are not
gained in this period, it will be more difficult for
children to learn them later in life. In our interviews,
people other than parents, emphasize ignorance
of families and their lack of education as the single
most important reason for late enrollment problem.
However, parents focus on their limited resources, the
age of their children, and children’s underdevelopment.
Apparently, many factors such as lack of appreciation
of the importance of education, ignorance, lack of
awareness, economic and environmental constraints
and socio-cultural issues are responsible for late
school enrollment. If we consider all these factors
together, it is clearly seen that urgent measures
should be taken to improve economic, social and
cultural development of the regions where we
conducted our research.
4.7. Kindergarten / kindergarten
attendance
Although “young age” and “physically insufficient
development” of these children are mentioned
by parents as reasons for not sending children to
school and this also emerged as the most important
reason for late enrollment, among this group of kids,
the number of children who attended kindergarten
last year is almost negligible. Therefore, it is quite
important to enlighten people in this region about the
importance of early childhood education; to increase
the number of preschools and kindergartens; and
to make them more functional. Since children in
this region are at risk because of poverty, one of the
important functions of preschools/ kindergartens in
the province should be supporting and monitoring
the physical and mental development of children.
Again, at this stage, with the cooperation and the
coordination between the Ministry of Health and
Ministry of National Education, enrollment records
and other information about children can be collected
and stored more systematically, and can be used in
support of educational activities. In addition, another
function of kindergarten is to provide opportunities for
Turkish language acquisition for children whose native
language is not Turkish. This would help them not to
have language problem when they start school.
187
4.8. School enrollment decision
Although the decision for enrolling the child in school
seems to be made by the mother and father together,
it is understood that the most influential person in
making the decision is the father. Therefore, it is even
more important to inform and direct fathers about the
school starting age and the characteristics of primary
schools. Those who can communicate better with
the fathers such as the mukhtars, religious officials
and other local administrators should be enlightened
and so that they can help fathers to understand
the importance of the problem. Even during the
military service, young men can have both awareness
education and training about child development.
Thus, fathers-to-be can understand the importance of
enrolling children in school on time.
In the provinces that this research was carried out,
many families experienced transportation difficulties,
school expenses, although legally prohibitedregistration fees collected under the name of school
donation, economic problems prevent these families
to enroll their children to school in time. Some families
do not know the contribution made by the government
that facilitates the enrollment of children to primary
education. The announcement to families in the region
by the local governments before the beginning of each
academic year, about what the type of contribution is,
who, when and where to apply can be very helpful.
188
and failure to enroll children in school at all. It must
be kept in mind that in the case of children who did
not register on time, there is a particular situation: if
their enrollment is postponed more than a year, their
enrollment chance considerably decreases. In this
frame, it is interesting to note that the number of girls
is greater among children who did not register two
consecutive years. Considering the research findings
about some religiously oriented families who prefer
to enroll their girls earlier to make them graduate
before puberty, we can easily conclude that since
every passing year children will develop a little more,
girls who do not enroll in time will lose their chance to
complete their education.
4.10. Regulation for primary
education institutions: Article 15
With the exception of MONE employees, about half of
the social stakeholders did not know the contents of
Article 15. Especially among the parents, the media
members and mukhtars, there were many people who
did not know this article. Considering the influence
of media members and mukhtars, it is necessary to
enlighten these two groups and other stakeholders on
this issue. Parents usually obtain information about
the age of school enrollment from teachers. Therefore,
teachers must be knowledgeable about Article 15 and
its guidelines so they can help parents.
4.9. School-bussing system and
YİBO’s
4.11. Traditional and religious
factors
Another important factor that causes late school
enrollment is the practice of “school-bussing” and
boarding schools (YİBO) developed as a result of
dispersed schools in the area. Families do not feel
comfortable about bussing their kids, especially the
girls to school and boarding school education. Parents
believe their boys are too young for bussing and
boarding schools. Therefore, they prefer to wait one
year and enroll them the next year. It is recommended
that this situation should be taken into account and
both programs must be re-considered.
Traveling every day for several hours or having
education in boarding schools away from home poses
serious question in terms of late school enrollment
In our study, participants stated that the effect of
traditional and religious factors on late enrollment is
very minimal. As mentioned before, traditional and
religious factors negatively impact girls’ enrollment in
secondary school. This situation indicates that even
if they enroll in primary school on time, the chance is
much less for girls to pursue higher education because
of traditional and religious factors. In other words, it
is evident that traditions and religious factors work
ultimately against girls. Therefore, it is important
that religious and traditional factors be considered,
particularly in the case of girls’ education.
4.12. Effect of female-male
children
In interviews it has been understood that gender
differences play a role in primary school enrollment.
In terms of continuing their education in the future,
girls are more affected by this situation than boys.
The most common reasons for this are the idea that
girls will get married at an early age leave home;
taking care of younger siblings; because of negative
portrayals in the media make parents feel that their
girls at risk and parents are concerned about them,
and thus, they do not want them to be in school
once puberty begins. As seen, the importance of the
sensitivity of media outlets in this regard is significant.
To strengthen the role of women in society, awareness
is needed to be created in society that women are not
beings to be driven by men, and they are not in need
of protection by men. In particular, women (mothers)
can be drawn into the school and meet teachers by
means of free literacy and various skills courses in
schools. Thus, these uneducated mothers can get
acquainted with education. This can be very helpful
in terms of raising the awareness of mothers. We can
expect that consequently, they may show extra efforts
to ensure the education of their girls. Perhaps these
training can help mothers to participate in working life
thus their dependency to the seasonal work that make
them to leave home for long time, can be reduced a
little bit.
4.13. The case of native language
Another significant finding of the study is the issue of
native language. In these cities some children are not
enrolled in school because their mother tongue is not
Turkish. Their parents think their children will have
difficulties in school because they don’t speak Turkish.
Although it has not been mentioned by parents,
this issue was emphasized during the focus group
meetings. Of course, it is not a fair situation for a kid
who does not understand Turkish to sit down in a
classroom where the instruction is given in Turkish
language. In order to eliminate this problem, MONE,
Early Childhood Education General Directorate should
expand the practice of “the Summer School” carried
out by the support of AÇEV. Increasing the number
of kindergartens in these cities and implementing
intensive training programs in these schools to
understand and speak Turkish will be helpful. At the
same time there should be literacy courses for parents
to learn Turkish. One of the most important factors
in acquisition of a second language is the age of the
child. The earlier a child starts to learn a language, the
better she can read, write and speak that language
and be a true bilingual (Johnson, 1992; Slavoff, and
Johnson, 1995). Children who learn a second language
at an early age develop better in terms of social,
emotional and cognitive growth. Besides teaching
Turkish to children and parents, languages spoken in
the region must be taught to teachers who work there.
4.14. Being able to focus on late
enrollment to school
Another striking finding of the research is that during
both focus group meetings, as well as semi-structured
interviews, the participants could not focus on the late
enrollment problem. One of the important reasons
for this is that participants are heavily involved with
issues such as economical issues of the region, ruralurban distinction, children’s health and development,
and therefore, late enrollment to school does not
seem to be a major issue for them. It is difficult for
them to isolate themselves from other vital issues.
This case is significant in terms of showing the
situation of cities and people who live in the region.
4.15. Work of actors and their roles
It was determined in the study that MONE employees,
officials of the Department of Religious Affairs
and local media have done some work for timely
enrollment of children in schools. However, these
efforts are very inadequate. Since they don’t work
in cooperation, these agents are not aware of each
other’s work, thus, inter-agency or inter-institutional
cooperation is needed urgently. In particular, the
commissions and committees that are in charge
of increasing parental awareness campaigns and
household screening procedures must include the
local and government agencies and other grassroots
stakeholders. This would be an important step
to understand, follow and resolve the problem.
Collaboration with healthcare workers may be very
useful especially in rural areas. Considering the
189
methods that midwives and nurses use such as
mother-child follow-up card or vaccination record,
cooperation with healthcare workers makes possible
to follow the development of children from birth to the
end of primary school education. Providing financial
support to parents, improving physical conditions
of schools, reducing classroom sizes, improving
the attitudes of teachers toward parents, and the
cooperation of all local and government agencies in
the region will help ensure that children are enrolled in
school at the appropriate age.
4.16. Recommendations for future
efforts and studies
The knowledge obtained from the quantitative
research findings emphasized the importance of the
improvement efforts in economic, social and cultural
sense, awareness trainings, the arrangements to
be made in schools and education systems that
grant quality school for every child, fight against
the gender inequalities in the society and providing
Turkish language education at an early age. The
96.2% of participants who participated in semistructured interview offered additional endeavors
apart from the efforts have already been made.
These recommendations are built on views such as
raising education awareness of parents, work of the
official and local institutions by establishing a joint
commission, providing economic support for parents
in need, and increasing the quality schooling. Among
those recommendations, the highest priority is given
to raising the awareness of parents. However, it is
also noted that (parents alone should not be held
responsible for) the burden of disadvantages should
not be commissioned to the parents alone; especially
some economic problems, lack of organizational
approaches, the troubles in use of technology and
perspectives to education must also be taken into
consideration. Indeed, in this context, participants
listed following wishes as additional steps for the
solution: functionalizing the electronic enrollment
system, enforcement of penal sanctions against
parents, putting the religious officials in place more
effectively, more publicity efforts (posters and
190
advertisements), financial support for the seasonal
worker families and allowing their children enroll
in schools where they do migrant work, solving the
native language issue and making schools more
attractive.
4.17. Effective communication
practices
Thinking the potential role of effective communication
practices and the use of proper communication
channels in the achievement of timely school
enrollment campaign, people were asked of the best
channels to be announced of the campaign efforts to
be done in their cities, towns and villages. The most
obvious method presented is one to one, face to face
communication. It has been highlighted that no other
communication channels other than face to face
option include sincerity and earnestness.
When we analyzed the expressed communicative
terms, the actors that are expected to take an
active role in communication were ranked as media,
teachers, religious officials, the mukhtars, and MONE
officials. However, it has been expressed that, all of
them must be considered as a whole in practice and
functionalized according to their weight. It was also
noted that no matter how effective it is, working with a
single method cannot replace multi-channel methods,
parallel to face to face communication; various other
ways of communication also must be conducted.
4.18. Tasks for the relevant parties
Since participants repeatedly stated that everybody
had responsibilities for the timely enrollment of school
age children, we asked them to indicate what kind of
tasks they think for individuals and institutions having
a certain position in society. Considering the region
and provinces where the research was conducted,
and the influence people in these positions have on
the local people, it was particularly asked what kind
of tasks were expected from the mukhtars, teachers,
local governors, non-governmental organizations,
religious officials, doctors and nurses. Opinions of
participants were taken separately for each one of
these agents.
In this framework, the mukhtars are expected to
inform community, to communicate with families
and schools; to take active part in screening process;
and to cooperate with other stakeholders. Indeed,
findings of the quantitative research indicate that
families of late enrollment children have green card
(card provided by the state ensuring free health care
at state hospitals). This means that these families
communes to “Mukhthar’s office” for other purposes
such as health insurance concerns. Taking advantage
if this situation mukhtars can inform families about
schooling and school age issues.
Teachers are expected to raise awareness, to
communicate with other concerned individuals and
institutions in regard to families, to act in coordination
with other stakeholders, to encourage education and
to make it more attractive and to participate in the
screening process.
Local governments are expected to inform and
guide people about school enrollment; to improve
educational institutions; to provide financial help
for parents; to work in cooperation with other
stakeholders and to assume more authority and
enforcement power.
When it comes to the role of NGOs, participants listed
similar tasks as mentioned above. However several
additional expectations are also listed such as molding
public opinion to persuade families, providing both
emotional and financial support, and developing
projects or supporting the existing ones. There is a
factor to be taken into consideration, among survey
respondents that some think that NGOs have already
made contributions, while others think they cannot
provide any contribution in this regard. For this
reason, a planned and coordinated call to NGOs via
MONE officials will make a successful contribution to
increasing timely enrollment.
Being in the community all the time, religious officials
is considered important stakeholders with the
potential to provide a number of contributions in this
regard. Therefore, it is expected that they can raise
public awareness through their weekly sermons.
Considering their influence on people, they are
expected to persuade families to enroll their children
on time. Indeed, considering the potential risks of no
enrollment of girls when their enrollment in schools
are late, and the traditional beliefs and attitudes of
people about girls’ education, the role of religious
official gain further importance. However, similar to
NGOs some participants expressed reservation in
terms of contributions expected from religious official.
Therefore, they should be trained systematically in
advance about how and what to tell people in their
sermons. In other words, the contribution of the
individual efforts of each religious official may not
be effective and could potentially give the wrong
message.
Since healthcare workers, doctors, nurses and
midwives have a prestigious position in the local
social hierarchy; their impact on society is significant.
Therefore, we asked the participants what were their
expectations of healthcare workers. The responses
are quite similar to what they expect from previously
mentioned stakeholders. In addition, health workers
are expected to inform the community about children’s
physical development, for instance, and doctors are
expected to determine and intervene with growth
retardation and persuade families by using their
prestigious position. As with other social stakeholders,
concerns are expressed about the effectiveness of
doctors and nurses.
When we look at the expectations from all
stakeholders as a whole, they are expected to work
systematically in cooperation to enlighten and
persuade people about the importance of school
enrollment. In this sense, the unifying, guiding,
supervisory and supportive role of the Ministry of
National Education is very important.
4.19. Recommendations generated
from quantitative and qualitative
research findings
• Teachers’ home visits should be organized
systematically, and should be monitored and overseen
by provincial national education directorates.
Connected to the Ministry of Education, this work
should be done in a coordinated manner in all
provinces.
191
• In large and extended family settings, efforts aimed
at raising awareness should target the whole family,
not just mothers and fathers, and must be planned
accordingly.
• The problem of girls not registered on time should
be discussed in connection with culture, beliefs,
traditions and customs.
• Girls in this region cannot experience their childhood
as much as they want or need. Considering the
potential negative outcome of this, family and
teachers should be informed about it.
• Registration fees taken from parents in the name
of the donations are seen as one cause of late
enrollment. Other solutions must be found to meet the
needs of schools, and parents should not be charged
for education.
• The health status of all children and their
development must be monitored by the state until the
end of primary school.
• Necessary measures should be taken to prevent
late enrollment that happen because of errors in the
Address Registration System.
• The final year of early childhood education
(kindergarten) should be included in compulsory
education (for 60-72 months children).
• To eliminate the communication problems regarding
language issues, new courses should be opened
to teach Turkish to mothers and local languages
spoken more commonly in the region local language
should be taught to teachers.
• Summer schools should be organized in advance
to teach Turkish language to children who will start
primary school. This requirement can be met via
widespread application of summer school programs as
instituted by AÇEV and MONE.
• The week of primary school enrollment should be
celebrated in a festive mood especially in areas with
lower rates of enrollment.
• Article 15 should be re-stated in ways that people
can understand, and this article must be announced
via media, mukhtars, the cafes (kahvehane, populated
192
only by men in the region) of the villages and religious
officials prior to the school enrollment period.
• Teachers and health personnel should work in
cooperation, and the Ministry of National Education
and the Ministry of Health must work in a coordinated
fashion.
• When parents want to use their legal right to
postpone the enrollment of their children provided
by Article 15 with concerns that their children are
not physically ready for school, in addition to school
administrators, the opinion of healthcare personnel
must be sought in determining whether the child
actually needs to be out of school for a year.
• Educational institutions need to introduce
themselves to parents in terms of their mission,
vision, and activities. They should ensure the parents
understand that school is a safe environment for all
children regardless of their physical development.
• The physical characteristics of primary schools
should be reevaluated and necessary adjustments
be made to allow children with disabilities to attend
school.
• The projects that aim to turn elementary schools
into “child friendly” schools should be accelerated.
• In the courses offered in teacher training programs
of universities, various courses should be started that
teach prospective teachers about the laws, regulations
and rules about national education and MONE. MONE
and the universities should cooperate to prepare the
contents of these courses.
5. SHORT TERM STRATEGIC
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON
WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS
• Development of protocols between the Ministry
of National Education and Ministry of Health that
would make cooperation between them and health
personnel, school administrators and teachers
possible. This should be executed by the beginning of
the 2010-2011 academic year. School administrators
and the personnel at the health centers need to work
together on projects like “healthy schools.”
• Improvement of rehabilitation centers and the
initiation of orientation and supervisory work.
• To initiate “rural studies” that work to conduct
research and develop programs for the rural areas,
the Ministry of National Education should increase
the number of personnel working in Guidance and
Research Centers or their workloads should be
reduced. Further, strategic plans of rural studies for
the next academic year must be prepared immediately.
School administrators, teachers, academics, local
authorities and experts in the Guidance and Research
Centers should work together in the preparation of
this strategic plan.
• Birth control campaigns carried out by the Ministry
of Health should continue and during these campaigns
parents should be informed about the economic
and social burden the number of children brings to
the family. The Directorates of MONE should work
cooperatively with the Health Directorates and
Religious Affairs Directorate. Within the framework
of this cooperation both the religious officials and
medical personnel should be educated concerning
the dimensions, consequences and solutions of the
problem and they should be provided with necessary
educational skills to have active roles in public
education and awareness activities.
• In regard to late school enrollment problems,
MONE must inform the social stakeholders about
the significance of the issue by educating local
governments about how to deal with the problem.
For example, the families who apply for various aids
and governmental supports can be informed about
school enrollment during their application procedure is
completed.
• Invitation letters should be prepared to be sent out
to NGOs asking for collaboration to work toward the
solution of the problem. These letters should also
define and explain the problem and those NGOs, who
reply positively, should be offered to work towards
preparing protocols for partnership. MONE can support
the work started after this collaboration and carried
out by NGOs by providing materials. MONE can also
demand regular progress reports to follow up with the
works of NGOs and monitor their activities.
• Turkish-language courses should be started as soon
as possible in the regions where women cannot speak
Turkish. MONE and Higher Education should merge
their facilities for this purpose.
• MONE should cooperate with the Ministry of National
Defense in order to educate young men during military
service about the importance of early childhood
education, on timely school enrollment registration,
education of girls and various governmental aids and
support provided for poor families who cannot afford
to educate their children.
• MONE and the Ministry of National Defense must
cooperate with the Faculties of Education to train the
trainers who are going to teach these men serving
their military duties. This program should be started
and completed within a six months time period.
• MONE, TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Institution),
privately owned media and local governments must
prepare an action plan to inform families that the
starting age for primary school is 72 months through
the local school administrators and teachers as well
as national and local media.
• Prior to the school enrollment period, MONE must
prepare an official letter reminding parents about
the enrollment of children aged 72 months. This can
be sent to family’s thorough school administration
and with the support of local governments and
municipalities. The letters should contain the
following:
• Auto-enrolled (e-enrollment, pre-registration)
students need to finalize their school enrollment,
• Children can and should enroll in school by 72
months of age,
• Age calculation is based on the age that the child
completed,
• School enrollment information,
• That the registration is free,
193
• Free distribution of textbooks,
• Information about other relief organizations that
provide support such as course materials, uniforms,
food etc.
• Flyers explaining Article 15 to parents and providing
other information regarding education must be
prepared by MONE and distributed to parents in
various ways (as newspaper supplements, in stores,
shopping malls, schools, entrances to various offices,
etc.). The information in this leaflet should be
announced on TV channels.
• MONE must start to work on a new module to add on
to the e-school system before next year’s registration.
This module should allow for the monitoring of
children’s schooling activities such as enrollment and
attendance.
• In order to determine the quantitative and
qualitative needs of early childhood education and
primary schools, MONE must request reports from
principals and inspectors in the second semester
of this academic year. In the framework of this
report, MONE must meet the requirements of these
institutions by the beginning of 2010-2011 academic
year.
• MONE must re-evaluate the status of Regional
Boarding Schools (YİBOs) and the school-bussing
programs taking into considerations the cultural
features of the region, including their expectations and
sensitivities. During the registration season families
should be invited to see the facilities and should spend
one or two nights with their children. Legal issues
should be resolved to allow for such changes.
• In particular, promotional events should be
organized in areas where parents’ education levels
are low in order to introduce school activities and the
school administration and teachers to local families.
The primary education week in this region should be
celebrated like a festival in cooperation with local
people, NGO’s and local media. MONE should ensure
that these festivals are advertised on national media
outlets.
194
• Teachers should be trained of techniques and skills
that help them work with disadvantaged children
and families. Both pre-service and in-service training
programs must be made available for the teachers.
This program should be implemented in cooperation
with schools, Higher Education Council, MONE and the
universities.
• The students of the Faculty of Education and teacher
candidates should have internship opportunities in
villages and rural areas. For this purpose the MONE,
Higher Education Council, local governments and the
local people should cooperate with each other. As a
result of this, teacher candidates can go to the region
and better understand the issues faced in the region.
Considering that these internship and practicum
opportunities can be provided during summer months,
the help of pre-service teachers can be used to teach
Turkish to children whose native language is not
Turkish.
• In order to increase the cooperation between the
schools affiliated to MONE and faculties of education,
administrators of MONE, Higher Education Council and
Schools of Education should come together to prepare
an efficient guideline and code of conduct that allow
for and define their work together.
• Administrators of the faculties of education should
work with MONE to re-design the Community Service
courses in their curriculum to address the more
pressing needs and problems of the underdeveloped
regions of Turkey.
REFERENCES
Al-Qudsi, S., (2003). Family Background, School
Enrollments And Wastage: Evidence From Arab
Countries. Economics of Education Review, 2, pp
567–580.
Dilli, C. (2006). Zorunlu Eğitim Çağında Bulunan Kız
Çocuklarının Okula Gitmeme Nedenleri. Elazığ: Fırat
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı 2007 – 2013, 2. (2006).
Ankara: TBMM.
Amante, D., VanHouten, V. W., Grieve, J. H., Bader,
C. H., & Margules, P. H. (1977). Neuropsychological
Deficit, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 4, pp.24-35.
SPO, İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması
Araştırması (2004).
AB Temel Eğitimi Destekleme Programı, retrieved from
http://www.meb.gov.tr- 28.11.2007 in May 2009.
SPO, AB, Hacettepe Üniversitesi. (2003). Türkiye Nüfus
ve Sağlık Araştırması. Ankara.
Bruce H. Rankin; Aytaç, Işık (2006). Gender Inequality
In Schooling: The Case Of Turkey. Sociology Of
Education, Vol. 79, No.1 pp. 25-43, American
Sociological Associat ion.
Fazlıoğlu, A.Dersan, N, (2004). GAP Bölgesinde Yoksul
Çocukları Eğitime Kazandırma Yönünde Katılımcı Proje
Uygulamaları. Eğitimde Yeni Ufuklar II: “Eğitim Hakkı
ve Okula Gidemeyen Çocuklar”, (s. 1-17). Ankara.
Gabriele, A.,& Schettino, F. (2008). Child Malnutrition
and Mortality in Developing Countries: Evidence from a
CroSD-Country Analysis, Analyses of Social Issues and
Public Policy, 8, 1, pp., 53 – 81
Buchmann, C. (2000). Family structure, parental
perceptions, and child labor in Kenya: What factors
determine who is enrolled in school? Social Forces, 78,
pp., 1349-1379.
Bulutay, T. (1999). Türkiye’de Çalışan Çocuklar. DİE.
Case, Anne; Paxson, Christina; Ableidinger, Joseph.
(2002). Orphans in Africa: Parental
Death, Poverty and School Enrollment. 2003 BREAD
Conference.
Çabuk N, Soylu A, Kavukçu S, Türkmen M, Büyükgebiz
B. The Relation Between Socioeconomic Level And Age
Of Attendance To Primary School. ESSOP, 1999 annual
Congress of the European Society for Social Pediatrics
“School Health” October 1999, İstanbul
Çıngı, H.,(2009). Örnekleme Kuramı, Bizim Büro
Basımevi, Ankara.
Çivi, S; Koruk İ. (2005). Konya İli Hasanköy Sağlık Ocağı
Bölgesinde İlköğretim 1. Sınıf Öğrencilerinde Kronik
Malnütrisyon Prevalansı. Erciyes Tıp Dergisi 27 (2),
64-69.
Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşme, www.0-8.org/
hukuksal/bm_cocuk_haklari_sozlesmesi.doc
SPO, İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik
Sıralaması Araştırması (2003).
Haydi Kızlar Okula Kampanyası retrieved from http://
haydikizlarokula.meb.gov.tr/uygulama_sonuclari.php
İnsan Hakları Evrensel Beyannamesi retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/turkey/pdf/_gi17.pdf
Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second
language acquisition: The effect of written versus
auditory materials on the assesment of grammatical
competence. Language Learning, 42, 217-248.
Jukes, M. (2006). Early Childhood Health, Nutrition And
Education. London: UNESCO.
Kavak, Y; Ergen, H., (2007). Türkiye’de İlköğretime
Katılım ve Okula Gidemeyen Çocuklar. Milli Eğitim
S.173, 8-26.
MONE, 2007 -2008 Eğitim Dönemi (March 2008)
e-school veri tabanı.
MONE, (2006). Early Childhood Education Program (36
- 72 months of age Çocuklar İçin). Ankara: MEB Yayını.
MEB, İlköğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği retrieved from
http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/225_0.html
195
MONE. (2007-2008). National Education Statistics
Formal Education. Ankara.
Richardson T. L.; Montz (1985). Academic Achievement
Among Early Entry Students. 28.
Miguel Urquiola, V. C. (2006). Apples and Oranges:
Educational Enrollment and Attainment Across
Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Science
Direct, 572-590.
Slavoff, G. R. and Johnson, J. S. (1995). The effects of
age on the rate of learning a second language. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 1-16.
Nakip, M. (2005) Pazarlama Araştırmalarına Giriş
(SPSS Destekli), (s.55). Ankara.
Neyzi, O., Furman, A., Bundak, R., Gunoz, H.,
Darendeliler, F., & Bas, F. (2006). Growth References
for Turkish Children Aged 6 to 18 Years Acta
Pædiatrica, pp., 1635-1641
Özbek, A. Miral, S. (2003). Child Ruh Sağlığı Açısından
Prematürite. Child Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi, 317327.
Rabinowitz, G.L. (1989). School Entry Age: The Effects
On School Achievement And Adjustment. Atlanta
Rena, Ravinder. (2007). Factors Affecting The
Enrollment And The Retention Of Students At Primary
Education In Andhra Pradesh - A Village Level Study.
Essays in Education 22, 102-112.
196
Şimşek, Z., Koruk, İ., (Kasım 2008). İhmal Edilen Bir
Grup: Şanlıurfa İl Merkezinde Göçebe Mevsimlik Tarım
İşçilerinin Çocukları.7.Sokakta Çalışan ve Yaşayan
Çocuklar Sempozyumu.
Temel Eğitim Programı ve Projeleri retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org
TÜİK. (2007). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi.
TÜİK. (2006). Çocuk İşgücü Araştırması. Ankara
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası (1982) retrieved from
http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/anayasa.html
UNESCO, (2000), Final Report, World Education Forum
26 - 28 April 2000, Dakar, Senegal.
Wils, A. (2004). Late Entrants Leave School Earlier:
Evidence from Mozambique. International Review of
Education. 50(1): 17–37. Netherlands.
APPENDIX – I DETAILED TABLES
Appendix Table 1. Net enrollment rates of males at single ages based on the
developmental degrees of the provinces
13 years 12 years 11 years 10 years 9 years
8 years
7 years 6 years
Average
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
DEGREE 1
97,92
98,20
98,76
99,05
99,09
99,12
99,02
98,50
91,64
DEGREE 2
97,50
98,11
98,77
98,96
98,99
99,01
98,84
98,13
89,03
DEGREE 3
97,36
97,83
98,53
98,60
98,66
98,67
98,50
97,87
89,97
DEGREE 4
95,78
95,95
97,41
97,70
97,94
97,93
97,69
96,44
85,02
DEGREE 5
93,06
89,86
94,10
96,05
96,99
97,16
96,73
94,00
79,98
TURKEY
96,71
96,65
97,87
98,34
98,53
98,56
98,35
97,32
88,02
10 PROVINCES
92,98
90,3
94,3
96,2
97,1
97,3
96,8
93,8
78,6
Appendix Table 2. Net enrollment rates of females at single ages based on the
developmental degrees of the provinces
13 years 12 years 11 years 10 years 9 years
8 years
7 years 6 years
Average
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
DEGREE 1
97,54
96,72
97,77
98,43
98,67
98,80
98,76
98,34
92,82
DEGREE 2
97,17
96,51
97,75
98,40
98,59
98,69
98,63
98,08
90,54
DEGREE 3
97,07
96,31
97,46
98,03
98,27
98,27
98,34
97,91
91,80
DEGREE 4
94,12
90,65
93,90
95,62
96,56
96,97
96,85
95,83
86,44
DEGREE 5
85,86
73,55
80,81
86,36
90,16
92,19
92,67
90,65
78,65
TURKEY
95,18
92,57
94,78
96,27
97,07
97,46
97,44
96,66
89,03
10 PROVINCES
85,53
73,8
80,6
86,3
90,0
92,1
92,5
90,2
77,1
197
Appendix Table 3. Sex distribution of participants in semi-structured interviews
Frequency
%
Male
78
91,8
Female
7
8,2
Total
85
100
Appendix Table 4. Distribution of participants in relation to the target child
Late enrollment
198
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Older sister
6
0.6
2
1.5
8
0.7
Uncle-Father’s brother
5
0.5
-
-
5
0.5
Grandfather
5
0.5
-
-
5
0.5
Older brother
4
0.4
-
-
4
0.4
Aunt
5
0.5
-
-
5
0.5
Grandmother
1
0.1
2
1.5
3
0.3
Uncle-Mother’s brother
2
0.2
-
-
2
0.2
Male cousin
1
0.1
1
0.7
2
0.2
Yenge-Wife of a male relative
2
0.2
-
-
2
0.2
Step mother
1
0.1
-
-
1
0.1
Total
32
3.2
5
3.7
37
3.6
Appendix Table 5. Age group distribution of participants in semi-structured
interviews
Age
Frequency
%
18-24
4
4,7
25-34
22
25,9
35-44
31
36,5
45-54
19
22,4
55+…
5
5,9
No answer
4
4,7
Total
85
100
Average
40 years
on level of education
Frequency
%
Illiterate
3
3.5
6
7.1
Middle school graduate
6
7.1
15
17.6
University graduate
52
61.2
Masters/Doctorate
3
3.5
Total
85
100
199
on their occupations
Frequency
Percentage
Teacher/educator
39
45,9
Media worker
13
15,3
Self-employed
13
15,3
Religious officials(imam- muezzin)
6
7,1
District head official
4
4,7
Muhktar
4
4,7
SYDV worker/principal
3
3,5
Lawyer
1
1,2
Doctor
1
1,2
Stay at home mother
1
1,2
Total
85
100
on how long they have worked at their current jobs
Frequency
%
Less than a year
7
9,0
1-5 years
19
24,0
6-10 years
16
20,0
11-15 years
11
14,0
16-20 years
13
16,0
20 years and above
13
16,0
Total
79
100
Average
200
12 years
Appendix Table 9. Distribution of household members based on their relationship
to the target child who did not participate in school on time
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
61
0,9
12
1,1
73
0,9
35
0,5
10
1
45
0,6
Cousin
29
0,4
14
1,3
43
0,5
Grandfather (father’s father)
28
0,4
1
0,1
29
0,4
Grandfather (mother’s father)
18
0,3
4
0,4
22
0,3
Step mother
15
0,2
1
0,1
16
0,2
Aunt (father’s sister)
15
0,2
1
0,1
16
0,2
Grandmother (mother’s mother)
14
0,2
1
0,1
15
0,2
Aunt
4
0,1
-
-
4
0
Nephew/niece
3
0
-
-
3
0
Step sister/brother
3
0
-
-
3
0
2
0
-
-
2
0
Brother-in-law
1
0
-
-
1
0
228
3,2
44
4,2
272
3,3
Total
201
Appendix Table 10. Age distribution of household members*
Late enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Age groups
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
0-4
805
11,5
120
11,5
925
11,5
5-9
1.846
26,4
276
26,4
2.122
26,4
10-14
1.231
17,6
187
17,9
1.418
17,6
15-19
686
9,8
109
10,4
795
9,9
20-24
324
4,6
49
4,7
373
4,6
25-29
370
5,3
59
5,6
429
5,3
30-34
487
7,0
57
5,4
544
6,8
35-39
497
7,1
68
6,5
565
7,0
40-44
328
4,7
50
4,8
378
4,7
45-49
188
2,7
29
2,8
217
2,7
50-54
83
1,2
18
1,7
101
1,3
55-59
57
0,8
9
0,9
66
0,8
60-64
27
0,4
4
0,4
31
0,4
65-69
26
0,4
2
0,2
28
0,3
70-74
13
0,2
7
0,7
20
0,2
75-79
13
0.2
1
0,1
14
0,2
80-84
10
0,1
1
0,1
11
0,1
85-89
3
0,0
1
0,1
4
0,0
90+...
4
0,1
-
-
4
0,0
Total
6.998
100
1047
100
8.045
100
*People who did not answer this question were not included in the table.
202
No enrollment
Appendix Table 11. Age – sex distribution based on living in urban and rural living
areas (Late enrollment)
Rural living areas
Female
Urban living areas
Male
Female
Male
Age
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
0-5
233
15,8
259
16,6
281
14,4
294
14,7
6-9
337
22,9
341
21,9
455
23,3
434
21,7
10-14
263
17,9
292
18,7
346
17,7
327
16,4
15-19
138
9,4
142
9,1
186
9,5
220
11,0
20-24
63
4,3
74
4,7
75
3,8
112
5,6
25-29
90
6,1
71
4,6
125
6,4
84
4,2
30-34
105
7,1
102
6,5
155
7,9
125
6,3
35-39
93
6,3
103
6,6
149
7.6
152
7,6
40-44
62
4,2
82
5,3
76
3,9
108
5,4
45-49
29
2,0
30
1,9
53
2,7
76
3,8
50-54
15
1,0
21
1,3
17
0,9
30
1,5
55-59
14
1,0
17
1,1
10
0,5
16
0,8
60-64
8
0,5
8
0,5
5
0,3
6
0,3
65-69
8
0,5
5
0,3
4
0,2
9
0,5
70-74
3
0,2
4
0,3
5
0,3
1
0,1
75-79
7
0,5
3
0,2
2
0,1
1
0,1
80-84
4
0,3
4
0,3
2
0,1
0
0,0
85-89
1
0,1
0
0,0
1
0,1
1
0,1
90+...
0
0,0
0
0,0
4
0,2
0
0,0
Total
1.473
100
1.558
100
1.951
100
1.996
100
203
Appendix Table 12. Age – sex distribution based on living in urban and rural living
areas (No enrollment)
Rural living areas
Female
204
Urban living areas
Male
Female
Male
Age
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
0-5
34
13,7
39
15,8
44
14,9
42
16,5
6-9
59
23,8
52
21,1
76
25,7
49
19,2
10-14
49
19,8
46
18,6
51
17,2
41
16,1
15-19
21
8,5
27
10,9
32
10,8
29
11,4
20-24
13
5,2
12
4,9
9
3,0
15
5,9
25-29
11
4,4
12
4,9
22
7,4
14
5,5
30-34
11
4,4
8
3,2
20
6,8
18
7,1
35-39
18
7,3
19
7,7
15
5,1
16
6,3
40-44
13
5,2
12
4,9
14
4,7
11
4,3
45-49
4
1,6
7
2,8
6
2,0
12
4,7
50-54
5
2,0
6
2,4
2
0,7
5
2,0
55-59
3
1,2
3
1,2
2
0,7
1
0,4
60-64
1
0,4
1
0,4
2
0,7
0
0,0
65-69
2
0,8
0
0,0
0
0,0
0
0,0
70-74
2
0,8
2
0,8
1
0,3
2
0,8
75-79
1
0,4
0
0,0
0
0,0
0
0,0
80-84
1
0,4
0
0,0
0
0,0
0
0,0
85-89
0
0,0
1
0,4
0
0,0
0
0,0
Total
248
100
247
100
296
100
255
100
Appendix Table 13. Sex and education distribution of household members 15 years
of age and above living in urban and rural living areas (%)
No enrollment
Female
Urban living areas
Male
Female
Male
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No schooling
79
74,5
38
34,5
85
68,0
37
30,1
Can read and write
6
5,7
6
5,5
2
1,6
10
8,1
9
8,5
32
29,1
9
7,2
27
22,0
5
4,7
13
11,8
9
7,2
12
9,8
1
0,9
1
0,9
3
2,4
6
4,9
through 8th)
4
3,8
14
12,7
13
10,4
14
11,4
0
0,0
0
0,0
0
0,0
3
2,4
High school student
0
0,0
2
1,8
3
2,4
4
3,3
1
0,9
4
3,6
1
0,8
5
4,1
University student
0
0,0
0
0,0
0
0,0
4
3,3
University and above
1
0,9
0
0,0
0
0,0
1
0,8
106
100
110
100
125
100
123
100
Total
205
Appendix Table 14. Employment status of household members based on age groups
in late enrollment group (Late enrollment)
Age
0-5
6-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90+...
206
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Not working
Working
Total
803
100
1.838
99,6
1.224
99,5
611
89,7
252
78,3
264
71,9
312
64,3
299
60,2
176
53,7
110
58,8
49
59,0
48
84,2
19
70,4
23
88,5
13
100
12
92,3
7
70.0
3
100
4
100
0
0,0
7
0,4
6
0,5
70
10,3
70
21,7
103
28,1
173
35,7
198
39,8
152
46,3
77
41,2
34
41,0
9
15,8
8
29,6
3
11,5
0
0,0
1
7,7
3
30.0
0
0,0
0
0,0
803
100
1.845
100
1.230
100
681
100
322
100
367
100
485
100
497
100
328
100
187
100
83
100
57
100
27
100
26
100
13
100
13
100
10
100
3
100
4
100
Appendix Table 15. Occupational distribution of household members15 years of age
and above
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Soldier
29
0,9
7
1,5
36
1,0
25
0,8
5
1,1
30
0,8
Seasonal worker in the city they live in
20
0,6
3
0,6
23
0,6
12
0,4
-
-
12
0,3
5
0,2
-
-
5
0,1
3
0,1
-
-
3
0,1
3
0,1
-
-
3
0,1
228
3,2
44
4,2
272
3,3
Professional Self-employed (Doctor,
Lawyer)
Operates medium/large scale operations, employer
Administrator
Total
Appendix Table 16. Distribution of educational backgrounds of the mothers
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No schooling
683
71,8
114
85,1
797
73,5
Can read and write
57
6
1
0,7
58
5,3
134
14,1
14
10,4
148
13,6
34
3,6
4
3
38
3,5
Primary school graduate-(1st through
8th)
28
2,9
-
-
28
2,6
2
0,2
-
-
2
0,2
9
0,9
-
-
9
0,8
University and above
4
0,4
1
0,7
5
0,5
951
100
134
100
1.085
100
Total
207
Appendix Table 17. Distribution of occupations mothers have*
Late enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
No enrollment
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Stay at home mother
918
96,3
128
96,2
1.046
96,3
Unemployed
17
1,8
1
0,8
18
1,7
work
5
0,5
2
1,5
7
0,6
5
0,5
1
0,8
6
0,6
Farming / livestock
2
0,2
1
0,8
3
0,3
Skilled worker
3
0,3
-
-
3
0,3
Small Business/trading
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
1
1
953
0,1
0,1
100
133
100
1
1
1.086
0,1
0,1
100
Professional Self-employed
Total
Appendix Table 18. Distribution of occupations fathers have*
LateGeç
enrollment
Kayıt
Frequency
Frekans
Seasonal
worker inmevsimlik
the city they
Yaşadığı şehirde
işçi
live in
7
0.8 0,8
3
0.8
-
3
%
Yüzde
Frequency
Frekans
%
Yüzde
2.3 2,3
-
10 10
7
0.9 0,9
0.7
-
3
0.3
1
1
0.1 0,1
-
-
-
-
1
1
0.1 0,1
Asker
Soldier
1
1
0.1 0,1
-
-
-
-
1
1
0.1 0,1
Toplam
Total
19 19
2.1 2,1
3
3
2.3 2,3
22 22
2.1 2,1
3
7
3
0.3
0,8
0,3
208
Frequency
Frekans
Not enrollingkayıt
on
Zamanında
time (Total)
olmayan
(Toplam)
Emekli çalışmıyor
Orta/büyük ölçekli işletmeci/
Operates medium/large scale
işveren
Yönetici
Administrator
7
7
%
Yüzde
No enrollment
Kayıtsız
-
-
-
-
7
3
0,7
0,3
Appendix Table 19. Rental rates*
(This question was asked to those who lived in rental homes)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
100 TL or less
10
6,7
1
6,3
11
6,7
10 - 150 TL
78
52,3
10
62,5
88
53,3
151 - 200 TL
32
21,5
-
-
32
19,4
201 - 250 TL
16
10,7
3
18,8
19
11,5
251 TL and higher
13
8,7
2
12,5
15
9,1
Total
149
100
16
100
165
100
Appendix Table 20. Distribution of the size of the residence*
(Garden etc., not included for the houses)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
50 m2 and less
34
4,3
7
7,6
41
4,7
5 - 100 m2
577
73,5
63
68,5
640
73,0
101 - 150 m2
144
18,3
19
20,7
163
18,6
151 - 200 m2
24
3,1
3
3,3
27
3,1
201 m2 and above
6
0,8
-
-
6
0,7
785
100
92
100
877
100
Total
209
Appendix Table 21. Reasons for the difference between the actual age and the age
indicated in state birth certificates* (BC)
Late enrollment
Going to the registrar’s office late
(Registering the child with the
citizenship bureau late)
Older sibling passing away around
the time of the target child’s birth
and using the deceased child’s ID
The father decided that this was the
right thing
Official working at the registrar’s office at the citizenship bureau made a
mistake
The child was a girl, so we wanted her
to go to school early
We wanted to enroll the child with the
sibling on the same day as though they
were twins
We did not know the child’s actual age
so we registered the child at a younger
age
Because the child’s dad had passed
away, so registered the child later
Total
210
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
9
69,2
1
14,3
10
50,0
3
23,1
-
-
3
15,0
-
-
2
28,6
2
10,0
1
14,3
1
5,0
1
7,7
-
-
1
5,0
-
-
1
14,3
1
5,0
-
-
1
14,3
1
5,0
-
-
1
14,3
1
5,0
13
100
7
100
20
100
Appendix Table 22. Detailed description of the problems children experienced at birth *
(This question was asked to those who indicated that the child had some health problems when born)
Late enrollment
Base:116 People
No enrollment
Base: 26 People
(Total) Base: 142
People
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Developmental problem
40
31,5
1
3,7
41
26,6
Seizures
11
8,7
3
11,1
14
9,1
Physical disability
6
4,7
3
11,1
9
5,8
Problems with the eyes
7
5,5
1
3,7
8
5,2
Bronchitis
7
5,5
-
-
7
4,5
Hearing problems
3
2,4
3
11,1
6
3,9
Nasal Polyp
4
3,1
-
-
4
2,6
Shortness of breath
3
2,4
1
3,7
4
2,6
Heart failure
3
2,4
-
-
3
1,9
Skin Disorder
3
2,4
-
-
3
1,9
Speech disorder
1
0,8
2
7,4
3
1,9
Epilepsy
1
0,8
2
7,4
3
1,9
Anemia
2
1,6
1
3,7
3
1,9
Disease of the valves of the heart
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Oxygen deprivation of the brain
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Asthma
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Problems with the urinary track
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Problems with comprehension/ slow
comprehension
1
0,8
1
3,7
2
1,3
Constant fainting
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Undiagnosed
-
-
2
7,4
2
1,3
Hole in heart
2
1,6
-
-
2
1,3
Swellings in the bones of hands and
feet
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Oxygen deprivation at birth
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
211
Appendix Table 22. Continued
Late enrollment
Base:116 People
212
No enrollment
Base: 26 People
(Total) Base: 142
People
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Arteriosclerosis
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Hepatitis
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Staying in an incubator due to swallowing contaminated water
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Familial Mediterranean Fever
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Chickenpox
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Spastic
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Premature birth
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Handicaps of the lower back
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Mute and deaf
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Highly contagious infection
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Mental disability
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Sinusitis
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Problems with tonsils
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Problems with lips
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Heart being on the right side
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Kidney disease
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Lung cysts
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Pneumonia
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Staying in intensive care for a year after
birth
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Edema of the hip
-
-
1
3,7
1
0,6
Disabled at birth
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Goiter
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Undergoing constant colds
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Late enrollment
Base:116 People
No enrollment
Base: 26 People
(Total) Base: 142
People
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
There was a lump on the child’s
head at birth constantly swelling
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Problems with bone growth
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Ringworm
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Allergy
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Walking late
1
0,8
-
-
1
0,6
Total
40
32
15
55,5
55
34,1
213
Appendix Table 23. Having and illness or a disability that would prevent the child
from enrolling in school on time* (Not enrolling in school on time, Base: 133 People)
(This question was asked to those who reported that the child had and illness/special need
that would prevent the child from enrolling in school)
214
Frequency
%**
Developmental problems
13
9,6
Physical disability
11
8,1
Bronchitis
9
6,7
Problems with the eyes
8
5,9
Low weight
8
5,9
Heart problems
7
5,2
6
4,4
Epilepsy
6
4,4
Child underwent surgery
6
4,4
Hearing impaired
5
3,7
Seizures
5
3,7
Speech disorder
4
3,0
Difficulties with breathing because of nasal polyp
3
2,2
Skin disorder
3
2,2
Weakness
2
1,5
Hepatitis
2
1,5
Spastic
2
1,5
Kidney Disorder
2
1,5
Typhoid disease
2
1,5
Fainting
2
1,5
Comprehension problems
2
1,5
Hyperactivity
2
1,5
Diabetes
2
1,5
1
0,7
Frequency
%**
Arteriosclerosis
1
0,7
Speech problems because of dental cavities
1
0,7
Experienced some vision loss, getting treatment
1
0,7
Swelling of the bones
1
0,7
Slow bone growth
1
0,7
Acnes in the body
1
0,7
Handicap of the lower back
1
0,7
Deaf and mute
1
0,7
Contagious infection
1
0,7
Osteoclasis
1
0,7
Problems with the lips
1
0,7
Shortness of breath
1
0,7
Edema of the hip
1
0,7
Fainting and because of dizziness and head experiencing head injury
1
0,7
Goitrous
1
0,7
Problems of the urinary track
1
0,7
Stuffy nose
1
0,7
Headaches
1
0,7
Hole in the heart
1
0,7
Psychological problems
1
0,7
Undiagnosed
2
1,5
135
100
Total
215
Appendix Table 24. Height of the child who was not enrolled in school on time
based on the actual year of birth
1995
2002
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Frequency
%*
Late
enrollment
Shorter than a meter
1.00 - 1.10 meter
1.11 - 1.20 meter
1.21 meter and above
Total
-
-
17
41
23
24
105
16,2
39,0
21,9
22,9
100
1
1
2
50
100
-
-
2
15,4
-
-
-
-
4
30,8
-
-
No enrollment
1.00 - 1.10 meter
1.11 - 1.20 meter
Total
-
-
2
15,4
-
-
1
100
5
38,5
-
-
1
100
13
100
-
-
-
-
19
16,1
1
50
-
-
45
38,1
-
-
-
-
25
21,2
1
50
1
100
29
24,6
-
-
1
100
118
100
2
100
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
216
2001
1.00 - 1.10 meter
1.11 - 1.20 meter
Total
Appendix Table 25. Weight distribution of children*
(This question was asked to those who indicated to the child’s weight.)
Late enrollment
No enrollment
(Total)
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Less than 20 kilograms
55
29,9
6
37,5
61
30,5
21 - 24 kg
48
26,1
1
6,3
49
24,5
25 - 29 kg
63
34,2
6
37,5
69
34,5
30 - 34 kg
14
7,6
2
12,5
16
8,0
35 kg and above
4
2,2
1
6,3
5
2,5
184
100
16
100
200
100
Total
Appendix Table 26. Sources of information about the school enrollment age*
Late enrollment
No enrollment
Not enrolling on
time (Total)
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Frequency
%**
Kindergarten teacher/teacher
7
0,5
-
-
7
0,4
Principal of the school
2
0,1
-
-
2
0,1
Spouse
1
0,1
1
0,5
2
0,1
Imam
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
Students
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
Does not remember
9
0,6
2
1,1
11
0,7
Total
21
1,5
3
1,6
24
1,5
217
Appendix Table 27. Reasons for late enrollment*
(Late enrollment, Base: 843 People)
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
5
0,5
0,6
4
0,4
0,5
4
0,4
0,5
Wanted the child to go to school with his/her friends
4
0,4
0,5
The father did not want to
We sent the child to kindergarten so that the child would grow
and mature
Because we could not pay the fee the school asked during registration for the enrollment of the child
4
0,4
0,5
4
0,4
0,5
3
0,3
0,4
We were abroad
3
0,3
0,4
2
0,2
0,2
2
0,2
0,2
The father was out of town
2
0,2
0,2
There was a deficit of teachers, that was the reason
2
0,2
0,2
2
0,2
0,2
2
0,2
0,2
1
0,1
0,1
1
0,1
0,1
1
0,1
0,1
1
0,1
0,1
The child was not toilet trained last year
1
0,1
0,1
The father could not write or read, so we waited for the child’s
brother to come and do it
1
0,1
0,1
Family elders did not give permission
1
0,1
0,1
The child was too shy
1
0,1
0,1
We had just moved here last year, so we were unable to register
the child to school
Was having a difficulty with speech
We wanted the child to go to school with the sibling who was a
year younger
We could not enroll the child in school because of the child’s
age being recorded younger the child actually was
School administration did not take the child because the child’s
Turkish was not good
We enrolled the child in school but the teacher sent the child to
kindergarten because the child was not able to write
There were safety problems in the route the child was going to
take to go to school last year
Last year, around the time school started, a family member fell
ill
Last year, a family member passed away around the time
school started
We thought the child would develop better and be more successful in school if we waited another year
218
Frequency
Percentage
of Responses
Percentage of
Respondents**
Because of the child’s problem, we did not want the child to go to
a school that was far (could not speak well)
1
0,1
0,1
Because the classrooms were overcrowded
1
0,1
0,1
1
0,1
0,1
1
0,1
0,1
No reason
1
0,1
0,1
I already sent my child to school at the age of 6
1
0,1
0,1
Biological mother did not send us the child’s state birth certificate, that’s why
1
0,1
0,1
We weren’t here during the registration period
1
0,1
0,1
Because the child attended kindergarten
1
0,1
0,1
Total
62
6,2
7,0
Child was working as a shepherd, we could not send the child to
school
I enrolled the child in school, but got scared of the teacher and
quit school after a month
Appendix Table 28. Reasons for late enrollment of the child who had a disability/illness*
Frequency
Because we could not pay the registration fee the school asked
for
School administration did not admit the child because the child’s
Turkish was not good
Child was getting rehabilitation, that is why
Total
1
0,7
1,0
1
0,7
1,0
1
0,7
1,0
1
0,7
1,0
1
0,7
1,0
5
3,5
5,0
219
Appendix Table 29. Reasons for no enrollment *
(No enrollment, Base: 106 People)
Frequency
Because we wanted the child to go to school with the sibling
1
0,8
0,9
Because the child’s sibling fell ill
Because the child’s father did not approve the child to go to
school
1
0,8
0,9
1
0,8
0,9
Because the actual age of the child was too old
1
0,8
0,9
Because of the death of the father
1
0,8
0,9
The child did not have a birth certificate card
1
0,8
0,9
The child was going to live in the village even after going to school
1
0,8
0,9
1
0,8
0,9
1
0,8
0,9
1
0,8
0,9
Schools quota was full
1
0,8
0,9
Our life style that of a nomadic one (migrant worker)
1
0,8
0,9
Total
12
9,6
10,8
Because the child’s age was showing the child older than the child
was
Principal sent the child back home claiming the child did not know
anything
School administration did not admit the child without providing
explanations
220
academic year disaggregated by the province they lived in
(Late enrollment)
Yes, I wanted it
Total
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Ağrı
83
70,3
35
29,7
118
100
Bitlis
20
47,6
22
52,4
42
100
Diyarbakır
114
61,3
72
38,7
186
100
Gümüşhane
9
60,0
6
40,0
15
100
Hakkari
17
63,0
10
37,0
27
100
Muş
36
60,0
24
40,0
60
100
Osmaniye
35
61,4
22
38,6
57
100
Şanlıurfa
156
69,6
68
30,4
224
100
Şırnak
57
80,3
14
19,7
71
100
Van
108
68,8
49
31,2
157
100
academic year disaggregated by fathers’ educational levels (Late enrollment)
Has no schooling
eighth grade graduate
Graduate of high
school or higher
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
279
67,9
298
64,5
36
65,5
Yes, I wanted it
132
32,1
164
35,5
19
34,5
Total
411
100
462
100
55
100
221
academic year disaggregated by total household income (Late enrollment)
222
Yes, I wanted it
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
200 TL and under
136
21,8
59
18,7
201 - 300 TL
94
15,0
38
12,0
301 - 400 TL
105
16,8
41
13,0
401 - 500 TL
85
13,6
53
16,8
501 - 600 TL
72
11,5
59
18,7
601 - 750 TL
55
8,8
22
7,0
751 TL and above
78
12,5
44
13,9
Total
625
100
316
100
Appendix Table 33. Reasons for children to stay out of school despite wanting to
enroll the child in school during 2007-2008 academic year*
(Late enrollmentBase: 310 people)
(This question was asked to those who attempted to enroll the child in school during
2007-2008 academic year.)
Frequency
Took the child to be enrolled in school but was not able to
because the child cried
Principal did not allow for the child to be enrolled because the
child did not speak Turkish well
5
1,6
1,6
4
1,3
1,3
4
1,3
1,3
I did not do anything because the family members did not want to
3
0,9
1
The child did not have a state birth certiicate
3
0,9
1
The child was ill, so I could not enroll the child in school
2
0,6
0,6
1
0,3
0,3
1
0,3
0,3
1
0,3
0,3
1
0,3
0,3
1
0,3
0,3
1
0,3
0,3
27
8,4
8,6
We sent the child to kindergarten because the child was
underdeveloped
Because of our address the school did not take the child’s
enrollment
We had just moved from the village, so the child did not speak
Turkish and we enrolled the child in kindergarten for the child to
mature
I enrolled the child in school but was afraid of the teacher so I
took the child from school a month later
I enrolled the child in school but there was no teacher, so the
child could not go to school
We enrolled the child in school but the teacher kicked the child
out of school by saying the child was not improving***
Total
*** Following set of events occurred for one particular child: The child was enrolled in school, but the teacher sent the child home
claiming that the child was not succeeding. Then, the principle of the school recalled the child for the child to get education,
but at the end of year, the child did not get’a grade report despite being enrolled in school.
223
Appendix Table 34. Attempts made to enroll the child in school previously
disaggregated by the province they live in (No enrollment)
Provinces
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
224
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No, I did not
Yes I did
Total
3
100,0
2
66,7
12
92,3
3
100.0
11
84,6
2
33,3
39
95,1
1
100,0
41
80,4
0
0,0
1
33,3
1
7,7
0
0.0
2
15,4
4
66,7
2
4,9
0
0,0
10
19,6
3
100
3
100
13
100
3
100
13
100
6
100
41
100
1
100
51
100
Appendix Table 35. Reasons to enroll the children in school after a year delay*
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
Because we obtained the child’s state birth certificate
The child overcame his/her fear
We sent the child to school despite having financial problems
7
6
5
1,0
0,9
0,7
1,1
0,9
0,8
The child matured enough in kindergarten
5
0,7
0,8
We completed the moving process
4
0,6
0,6
People around me told me I needed to enroll the child in school
3
0,4
0,5
I wanted to enroll the child in school anyway, and we did it
3
0,4
0,5
The sibling got older, we sent them together
3
0,4
0,5
We did not want the child to be ignorant
3
0,4
0,5
Because of mandatory education
3
0,4
0,5
Principal/teachers helped out
3
0,4
0,5
Family elders decided to enroll the child in school
2
0,3
0,3
We received a written notification
2
0,3
0,3
A school was built that was close by
2
0,3
0,3
Resolved the problems with bussing the children to school
2
0,3
0,3
Came from abroad and enrolled the child
2
0,3
0,3
2
0,3
0,3
1
0,1
0,2
Sending the child to a school for the children with disabilities this
year
Child’s brother came, and we enrolled the child in school
Child did not want to go to school, the teachers came convinced
the child
We fixed the error about the child’s age on the ID card
1
0,1
0,2
1
0,1
0,2
Stopped working as seasonal workers
1
0,1
0,2
The child’s mother’s health problem was resolved
1
0,1
0,2
I already sent the child to school at the age of 6
I sent the child first to kindergarten then to primary school.
Teachers found the child’s progress not sufficient, then the child
repeated kindergarten first, now the child finished first grade
1
0,1
0,2
1
0,1
0,2
57
7,8
9,3
Total
225
Appendix Table 36. Reasons for enrolling children in school during 20082009 academic year instead of enrolling children in school during 2007-2008
academic year*
226
Frequency
Percentage of
Responses
Percentage
of
Respondents**
We got a birth certificate for the child
3
0,9
0,9
Child got over his/her fear of school
3
0,9
0,9
So that the child would go to school with the friends/peers
3
0,9
0,9
We did not want the child to be ignorant
3
0,9
0,9
Classrooms sizes allowed for the enrollment
3
0,9
0,9
Forced the child to enroll and we did it
3
0,9
0,9
People around me told me to enroll the child in school
2
0,6
0,6
We were able to pay the registration fee for the enrollment
2
0,6
0,6
Child learned a little Turkish, then the school administration accepted the child
2
0,6
0,6
We finally finished moving
1
0,3
0,3
Child did not want to go to school, teacher came and convinced
the child then we sent the child to school
1
0,3
0,3
We got loans
1
0,3
0,3
Family/friends helped financially
1
0,3
0,3
We received a written document for it
1
0,3
0,3
We corrected child’s age in the birth certificate card
1
0,3
0,3
Gave another address to school and had the child enroll in school
1
0,3
0,3
Because the education was mandatory
1
0,3
0,3
I convinced my spouse (the father)
1
0,3
0,3
Teacher did not want to but we did it forcefully
1
0,3
0,3
Frequency
% of
Responses
% of
Respondents**
Went to kindergarten and developed
1
0,3
0,3
Taught how to write and sent to school
1
0,3
0,3
The child was in school the previous year but had not received
grade report, the child just repeated this year
1
0,3
0,3
We sent the child to first to kindergarten then to primary school,
the teacher had not found the child’s development sufficient
1
0,3
0,3
Child was sick the second semester, the child’s record was
erased, we are going to repeat the next year
1
0,3
0,3
We are sending the child to a school for children with disabilities
1
0,3
0,3
Total
40
12
12
227
Appendix Table 37. Being informed of article 15 of primary schools regulations of
Ministry of National Education disaggregated by the province they lived in
(Late enrollment)
Provinces
228
I know
I don’t know
Total
Ağrı
Frequency
%
18
15,4
99
84,6
117
100
Bitlis
Frequency
%
28
66,7
14
33,3
42
100
Diyarbakır
Frequency
%
44
23,7
142
76,3
186
100
Gümüşhane
Frequency
%
4
26,7
11
73,3
15
100
Hakkâri
Frequency
%
0
0,0
27
100,0
27
100
Muş
Frequency
%
19
31,7
41
68,3
60
100
Osmaniye
Frequency
%
20
35,1
37
64,9
57
100
Şanlıurfa
Frequency
%
46
20,7
176
79,3
222
100
Şırnak
Frequency
%
4
5,6
67
94,4
71
100
Van
Frequency
%
41
26,1
116
73,9
157
100
Appendix Table 38. Whether participants applied to legally postpone child’s
enrollment in school disaggregated by the province they lived in
(Late enrollment)
Provinces
Applied
Did not apply
Did not apply did not know
of such right
Total
Ağrı
Frequency
%
2
1,7
42
35,6
74
62,7
118
100
Bitlis
Frequency
%
0
0,0
1
2,4
41
97,6
42
100
Diyarbakır
Frequency
%
3
1,6
87
46,8
96
51,6
186
100
Gümüşhane
Frequency
%
0
0,0
15
100,0
0
0,0
15
100
Hakkâri
Frequency
%
0
0,0
16
59,3
11
40,7
27
100
Muş
Frequency
%
2
3,3
24
40,0
34
56,7
60
100
Osmaniye
Frequency
%
6
10,5
34
59,6
17
29,8
57
100
Şanlıurfa
Frequency
%
7
3,2
103
46,4
112
50,5
222
100
Şırnak
Frequency
%
3
4,2
68
95,8
0
0,0
71
100
Van
Frequency
%
3
2,0
57
37,3
93
60,8
153
100
229
Appendix Table 39. Whether participants were informed of the school enrollment
age during 2007-2008 academic year disaggregated by the province they lived in
(Late enrollment)
Provinces
230
Not informed
Informed
Total
Ağrı
Frequency
%
115
98,3
2
1,7
117
100
Bitlis
Frequency
%
42
100,0
0
0,0
42
100
Diyarbakır
Frequency
%
182
97,8
4
2,2
186
100
Gümüşhane
Frequency
%
13
86,7
2
13,3
15
100
Hakkâri
Frequency
%
27
100,0
0
0,0
27
100
Muş
Frequency
%
55
91,7
5
8,3
60
100
Osmaniye
Frequency
%
55
96,5
2
3,5
57
100
Şanlıurfa
Frequency
%
221
98,2
4
1,8
225
100
Şırnak
Frequency
%
62
87,3
9
12,7
71
100
Van
Frequency
%
151
96,2
6
3,8
157
100
Appendix Table 40. People who were influential in the decision to not enroll
children in school during 2007-2008 academic year*
Late enrollment
Base: 959 people
No enrollment
Base:135 People
Frequency
% of
Responses
Mother - Father together
539
54,9
56,2
57
42,2
41,0
Father
309
31,5
32,2
63
46,7
45,3
Mother
78
8
8,1
11
8,1
7,9
16
1,6
1,7
-
-
-
Teacher
14
1,4
1,5
-
-
-
Older brother
6
0,6
0,6
3
2,2
2,2
5
0,5
0,5
-
-
-
Grandfather
4
0,4
0,4
-
-
-
Older sister
3
0,3
0,3
1
0,7
0,7
Self decision
2
0,2
0,2
3
2,2
2,2
Step mother
1
0,1
0,1
-
-
-
Grandmother-Father’s
mother
1
0,1
0,1
-
-
-
Grandfather
1
0,1
0,1
-
-
-
1
0,1
0,1
-
-
-
1
0,1
0,1
-
-
-
School administration
-
-
-
1
0,7
0,7
981
100
102,3
139
100
103,0
Total
% of
% of
Frequency
Respondents**
Responses
% of
Respondents**
231
Appendix Table 41. Distribution of the people who were most influential in the
decision to not enroll children in school during 2007-2008 academic year*
Late Enrollment
No enrollment
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Father
742
77,6
119
88,8
861
79,0
Mather
170
17,8
9
6,7
179
16,4
17
1,8
-
-
17
1,6
Teacher
13
1,4
1
0,7
14
1,3
Older Brother
3
0,3
2
1,5
5
0,5
Mother-Father Together
2
0,2
3
2,2
5
0,5
Grandfather
3
0,3
-
-
3
0,3
Older Sister
2
0,2
-
-
2
0,2
Grandmother-Father’s
Mother’s
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
Grandfather
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
1
0,1
-
-
1
0,1
956
100
134
100
1090
100
Total
232
(Total)
Ağrı
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Gümüşhane
Hakkâri
Muş
Osmaniye
Şanlıurfa
Şırnak
Van
enrollment of their girls in schools disaggregated by the province they lived in
(Late enrollment)
No, I did not
receive it
Frequency
%
61
74,4
6
18,2
36
34,3
1
100
1
7,7
6
35,3
18
90,0
82
80,4
1
100
42
51,9
Yes, I
received it
Frequency
%
21
25,6
27
81,8
69
65,7
0
0,0
12
92,3
11
64,7
2
10,0
20
19,6
0
0,0
39
48,1
Total
Frequency
%
82
100
33
100
105
100
1
100
13
100
17
100
20
100
102
100
1
100
81
100
200 TL
and below
201 - 300
TL
301 - 400
TL
401 - 500
TL
501 - 600
TL
601 - 750
TL
751 TL
and above
enrollment of their girls in schools disaggregated by total family income
(Late enrollment)
No, I did not
receive it
Frequency
%
64
64,6
34
54,0
28
41,2
41
68,3
31
43,7
20
47,6
34
75,6
Yes, I
received it
Frequency
%
35
35,4
29
46,0
40
58,8
19
31,7
40
56,3
22
52,4
11
24,4
Total
Frequency
%
99
100
63
100
68
100
60
100
71
100
42
100
45
100
Geç kayıt
Late enrollment: Χ2: 25,466 degrees of freedom: 6 p=0,000
233
APPENDIX – II QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaire for quantitative data collection
Hello, This is ……………………..(Data collector indicate your name here), from
GENAR research company. As GENAR Research Company, we are collaborating
with professors from different universities currently working as faculty in
school of education to conduct a research to examine factors associated with
children’s timely enrollment in elementary schools. I want to ask you some
questions about this issue. No information about you, your child or family
will be shared with third parties and the information you provided will be
kept confidential. Moreover, the answers you gave will be used within overall
findings of the research. I would appreciate your help very much. Thank you in
advance for your time.
Data Collector’s
name
Address
control
Telephone
control
SPV Control
Date of Data
Collection
…/…/2009
Tel:(212) 212 80 52
Faks: (212) 212 38 02
www.genar.com.tr
Starting
Time
End Time
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, “THIS YEAR” MEANS 2008-2009 EDUCATIONAL YEAR, AND “LAST YEAR” MEANS 2007-2008 EDUCATIONAL YEAR)
SECTION I. QUATA FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS
K.1. The province the participant lives in:
1. AĞRI
3. DİYARBAKIR
5. HAKKARİ
7. OSMANİYE
9. ŞIRNAK
2. BİTLİS
4. GÜMÜŞHANE
6. MUŞ
8. ŞANLIURFA
10. VAN
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! WHEN AN ADDRESSEE IN THE “SELECTED” LIST IS NOT FOUND, DO NOT GO
TO THE “REPLACEMENT” LIST WITHOUT VISITING THE SAME HOUSEHOLD A TOTAL OF THREE TIMES!)
Sample Number
:……………………………………………
SAMPLE TYPE:
1. SELECTED 2. REPLACEMENT 1
3. REPLACEMENT 2
If moved on to Replacement 1, Reasons:
1. Selected participant refused to participate
2. No one was found in the selected household,
2.1. How many times was the originally selected household was visited?:……………….
3. Wrong address for the originally selected household
Other……………………………………………
If moved on to Replacement 2, Reasons:
4. Replacement 1 refused to participate
5. No one was found in the replacement 1 household,
5.1. How many times was the originally selected household was visited?……………….
6. Wrong address for the replacement 1 household
Other……………………………………………
District
:……………………..……….. Avenue/Street
:……………………….………..
Neighborhood :…………………….……….. Building number :…………………………………
Village
:…………………….……….. Apartment number :…………………………………
234
K.2. Do you have any children in the household who was born in 2001, but last year, in 2007-2008
educational year, did not enroll in school? If so, how many children are there and what are their names?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! LOOK AT THE “AGE CHART”, AND MAKE SURE THE PERSON YOU ARE TALKING TO UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU MEAN BOTH IN TERMS OF AGE AND THE YEAR FOR STARTING SCHOOL)
1. No there are not any (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! END THE INTERVIEW!)
2. Yes, there are
2.1. How many children are there? .........................
2.2.Can you give me their names?
2.2.1. Can you give me his/her name? .................................................................
2.2.2. Can you give me his/her name ? .................................................................
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! MAKE SURE YOU ARE VISITING THE CORRECT HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFIED
IN THE TABLE FOR PARTICIPANTS, MAKE SURE THE NAME OF THE CHILD THAT WAS IN THE PARTICIPANT
LIST WAS IN K.2, PUT THIS NAME BELOW WHERE IT SAYS “CHILD’S NAME” BELOW AND ASK THE
REMAINING QUESTIONS REFERRING TO THIS CHILD)
K.2.1. Name of the child that was in the participant list and considered while the remaining questions
were asked :……………………….........................................................................................................................
PLEASE answer the remaining questions keeping ………..(Target child’s name) in mind (DATA
COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! PLEASE READ)
K.3. What age did (Target child’s name) complete?
K.4. What is your relationship to (Target child’s name)?
………………...........................................
...............................................................
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! TALK TO THE CHILD’S MOTHER OR FATHER. IF THEY DON’T LIVE IN
THE HOUSEHOLD, ASK FOR THE PERSON WHO IS THE CAREGIVER (PERSON PROVIDING THE CHILD’S
DRESSING, FEEDING, EDUCATION, HEALTH ETC. NEEDS) AND CONTINUE WITH THAT PERSON!)
1. Mother
2. Father
Other (Relationship to child)………………………………………..
SECTION II. INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AND THE CHILD
1.1. What is the birth date of (Target child’s name) indicated in the state identification card?
…… (day)/……(month)/……….(year)
1.2. What is (Target child’s name)’s actual date of birth?
……(day)/……(month)/……….(year)
1.3. DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ARE THE YEARS IN THESE TWO DATES THE SAME? MARK WITHOUT ASKING AND MOVE TO THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOLLOWING.
1. The same (MOVE TO QUESTION 2)
2. Different (ASK QUESTION 1.4)
235
1.4. It looks like (Target child’s name)’s birth dates on his/her state identification card (ID) and
what you gave me are different, Can you tell us what the reason for this discrepancy is? Why are
the two dates different? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! DON’T READ THE ANSWER SELECTIONS)
1. Older sibling died around the time he/she was born and family used the deceased child’s ID
2. Registrar’s official made an error
3. Delaying child’s registration and registering the child on the day registrar’s office was visited
Other.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Was (Target child’s name) healthy when he/she was born? How was his/her development? If
there were any problems, what health problems did (Target child’s name) experience? Are these
health problems still affecting (Target child’s name)s health? If so, what type of health problems?
1. Everything was normal (general health, height, weight, development) (GO TO QUESTION 3)
2. There were some problems
2.1. What types of problems?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......
2.2. Did these health problems last until now or did they get cured/ resolved/did the child get healthy?
1. Problems were only during infancy, they went away after that period (GO TO QUESTION 3)
2. Problems lasted throughout childhood
2.2.2. What were these problems?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Does (Target child’s name) have any health problems or disabilities that would prevent him/her
from going to school
1. No, the child does not have illness/special need (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! GO TO QUESTION 4)
2. Yes the child had an illness/special need
2.1. Can you specify the name of illness/disability?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! YOU MUST SPECIFY BY YEAR AND MONTH)
2.2. For how long does the child have an illness/disability?
…………MONTH……………YEAR
4. Do you know (Target child’s name)’s height and weight? If so, can you state?
I know
22.1. Can you tell the
height/ and the weight?
1.
2. don’t know
1. Height
1 (GO TO NEXT
LINE)
2
……….… cm
2. Weight
1 (GO TO Q.5)
2
…………. kg
QUESTIONNAIRE FORM FOR EXAMINING THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME
236
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! WHEN CALCULATING THE CHILD’S AGE, THE AGE THE CHILD COMPLETED
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. WHEN THE CHILD WAS BORN THE CHILD’S AGE IS CONSIDERED TO BE “0.”
WHEN THE CHILD FINISHES ONE YEAR, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD IS 1 AND GOING ON TWO, THE CHILD’S
AGE WOULD STILL BE 1. FOR EXAMPLE, A CHILD WHO COMPLETED 30 MONTHS OF AGE WOULD STILL
BE 2 BECAUSE THE CHILD ONLY COMPLETED TWO FULL YEARS. MAKE SURE THE PARTICIPANT UNDERSTANDS THE QUESTION FULLY.)
5. Can you please indicate how old do you think the child should be (completed) to start primary
school (first grade of primary school)?
......................................................................................................................................................
6. Where did you get the information about the school enrollment age (What is the source of
information?
1. Neighbors
2. Friends
3. Relatives
4. School
5. Family Elders
6. Mukhtar
7. İmam
8. Media (Radio, television, newspaper, etc.)
Other………………………………………………………….
7. Including yourself, how many people do currently live in your household? How many children
are there in the household? What is the number of children who are currently students and living
in your household? Do you have any children who do not live in the household? IF THERE ARE, how
many? and why do they not live in the household?
1. Total number of people in the household:…………………………People
2. Total Number of children
:…………………………Child
3. Total number of students
:………………………...Student
4. Are there children who do not live in the household?
1. No (GO TO QUESTION 8)
2. Yes,
2.1. How many:…………………………
5. Why do they not live in the home?
1. Child
2. Child
3. Child
4. Child
1. Military service
1
1
1
1
2. Education
2
2
2
2
3. Health
3
3
3
3
4. Job
4
4
4
4
Other (Indicate)
…………………
…………………
…………………
……………….
237
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.Self-employed/Freelancer
6.State employee/ servant
2
1
1
3.Retired, currently
working
2
1
1
8.Professional Self-employed (Doctor,
Lawyer)
2
1
1
1
5.Small Business/trading(3 or fewer
employees like convenient shop,
produce shop, bulk food dealer,
trading etc.)
2
(ASK
ONLY FOR
THOSE
WHO ARE
STUDENTS
5. ATTENDING
BOARDING
SCHOOL?
2.Farming/
Livestock
2
1
1. Female
1
2.Male
7.Operates medium/large scale
ATTENTION MAKE
SURE TO
CORRECTLY
WRITE
DOWN THE
DATE OF
BIRTH!
2.AGE OF
BIRTH ON
THE ID
CARD?
3. SEX
4. WHAT IS THE EDUCATIONAL STATUS?
1. No schooling (Go to 8)
2. Can read and write (Go to 8)
3. Early childhood Education (Kindergarten/
preschool) (Go to 8) 4. Primary school dropout (ASK 6.2 and 7.2) (Go to 8)
5. Primary school student (ASK 5, I) (Go to
7.1’)
6. Primary school graduate-(1st through 8th)
(ASK 6.1 AND ASK)
7. High school drop-out (ASK 6.2 AND 7.2
than go to 8)
8. High school student (ASK 5, THEN Go to
7.1)
9. High school graduate (ASK 6.1 then Go
to 8)
10. University drop-out (ASK 6.2 AND 7.2,
Go to 8)
11. University student (Go to 7.1)
12. Graduate of university and above (ASK
6.1, Go to 8)
13. Currently attending occupational training
(Go to 8)
14. Occupational training drop-out (ASK 6.2
AND 7.2, Go to QUESTION 8)
Use the codes given above.
1.No
4.Retired, does not work
1. Relationship to
(Target child’s
name)
1. Mother
2. Father
3. Step mother
4. Step father
5.Sibling (older brother older sister)
6. Grandmother
(mother’s side)
7.Grandfather
(mother’s side)
8.Grandmother
9.Grandfather
10.Uncle (Father’s
brother)
11.Sister-in-law
12.Uncle (Mother’s
brother)
13.Aunts
14.Brother-in-laws
15. Cousin
16. Child him/herself
Other(Indicate)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.Yes
1. Home mother
10.PERSON
CARD1
9. PERSON
8. PERSON
7. PERSON
6. PERSON
5. PERSON
4. PERSON
3. PERSON
2. PERSON
1. PERSON
1. Person Case Number (ATTENTION! Person Interviewed needs to be “1”)
MARK THE CHILD THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE AS THE TARGET CHILD.
7.2. WHAT GRADE
WAS IT WHEN THE
PERSON DROPPED
OUT?
THOSE WHO ARE
DROP-OUTS:
12.Administrator
11.Unskilled labor work
9.WHAT TYPE OF SOCIAL
SECURITY DOES THE
PERSON HAVE?
1.No social security
2.SSI (SDK, Bağ-Kur)
3.Private Insurance
4.Green Card
15.Owns estate (Owns, land, field,
orchard etc, and earns income from it)
14.Travelling to other cities for
seasonal work
17. Not at the
employment age
16.Unemployed
10. Marital Status
1. Married
2. Living
together
3. Religiousservice only
4. Divorced
5. Separated
6 .Widow
widowe
7. Single
13.Seasonal worker in the city they
live in
7.1.INDICATE WHAT
GRADE?
THOSE WHO ARE
CURRENTLY STUDENTS:
10.Skilled labor
6.2. WHEN
DID THE PERSON DROP
OUT?
THOSE WHO
ARE DROPOUTS:
6.1. What
date was the
graduation
(YEAR)?
Those who
are graduates:
9. Now I am going to ask you questions about the household members. Please include household members who are part of the family but are currently residing
elsewhere (Reasons for military, education, health, job, etc.) answer for all the family members. Let’s start with YOU, and continue with the others (DATA COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION! NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE TABLE SHOULD BE THE SAME THE ONES INDICATED IN 7.1. USE THE CODES INDICATED BELOW FOR CODING.)
8. Indicate in detail the type of job they do
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! SHOW KARd1)
Use the codes given in CARD 1 belove).
238
9. Are (Target child’s name)’s parents living at home biological parents?
1. Yes (GO TO THE WARNING ON TOP OF SECTION 3)
2. No
10. Which one of the biological parents of (Target child’s name) does not currently live at home?
Is this parent alive or deceased? –IF ALIVE- Does this parent regularly meet with the child, if they
meet, how often do they meet?, can you indicate what this parent’s age, education, marital status
and the job he/she has are? Do they provide financial help?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! USE THE TABLE BELOW TO CODE)
3. Does (Target
child’s name)
regularly see
mother/father?
1. No they do
not see each
other regularly
2. Yes, they
see each other
regularly
3. They don’t
see each other
at all. (Go to
Q.5)
4. How often
do they see
each other?
1. Once-twice
a week
2. Almost
every
weekend
3. A few times
a month
4. Once a
month
5. Once every
few months
6. Once or
twice a year
5.Age
6. Educational
Level:
7. Marital
Status:
1. Married
1. No schooling 2. Living
2. Can read
together
and write
3. Religious
3. Primary
marriage
school
only
graduate
3. Divorced
4. Middle
4. Separated
school
5.Widow/
graduate
5. High school widower
6. Single
graduate
6. University
graduate
7. Masters/
Doctorate +..
8. What is
their job (in
detail)?
(DATA
COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION!
SHOW CARD 1)
……………
……………
9. Does
this parent
provide
financial
help?
2.Does not provide
financial help
(Specify)
2. Deceased/
or alive?
1. Dead (DATA
COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION!
If the other
parent is living
at home go to
Question 11, if
not, go to next
one)
2. Alive
1.Does provide
financial help
1. Who is it
that does
not live at
home?
1.Mother
2. Father
1
2
1
2
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! FOR THE CHILDREN WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE, OR THE
QUESTION 6, WHO WERE BORN IN 2001 AND STARTED SCHOOL THIS PAST YEAR, ASK SECTION 3 AND
THEN GO TO QUESTION 46 (SECTION V)
FOR THE CHILDREN WHO WERE INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE, OR IN QUESTION 6, WHO WERE BORN IN
2001 BUT STILL NOT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, GO TO QUESTION 29, SECTION 4,
SECTION III. QUESTIONS ABOUT CHILDREN WHO DID NOT ENROLL IN SCHOOL ON TIME
11. Do you think (Target child’s name) started school “on time”?
1. Yes, I think so
2. No, I don’t think so
12. Children who complete age 6 are enrolled in primary school in our country. Can you tell us why
(Target child’s name) was not enrolled in school last year?
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
239
13. Can you tell us if you wanted to enroll (Target child’s name) in school last year? If so, what did you
do to do this?
1. No, I did not want to (GO TO QUESTION 14)
2. Yes, I wanted to 2.1. What did you do?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THE PARTICIPANT TO EXPLAIN)
…………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………
14. What led you this year to enroll (Target child’s name) in school? Can you explain in detail how
you decided?
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
15. Do you know that in our country, children who are 6 years old (72 months of age) need to
start school based on Ministry of National Education Regulations.
1. I know
2. I don’t know
16. In our country children who are 72 months old by 31 of December of a given academic year are
eligible to enroll in elementary schools that academic year. Even though a child is eligible to enroll
in school based on his or her chronological age, if a parent applies with a written request to delay
entry to school, a child’s enrollment can be postponed for one year. Did you go to school to do the
legal procedure to postpone enrollment?
1. Yes I did it
2. No I did not
3. I did not, but did not know we had such a right
17. Was there anybody last year who spoke to you about enrolling 6 year old children in school
(mukhtar, teacher, imam etc.)? IF YES, Who were they? and what kinds of information did they
provide?
1. No, there was nobody (GO TO QUESTION 19)
2. Yes, there was someone/people, 2.1.Who spoke to you?
1. Relative, Neighbor, etc., people from around
2. Mukhtar
3. Imam
4. Teachers in the neighborhood
5. Principal of the school in the neighborhood
6. District head official
Other………………………………………………….
2.2. What types of information did the person provide/what did the person say?
…………………………….................................................................................................................
……………………………………......................................................................................................
240
18. Did the person speak to you before or after the registration period? Did you do anything after
getting the information to enroll the child in school? If YES, tell us what you did
1. Spoke prior to the registration period
2. Spoke after the registration period
18.2. After getting the information, did you do anything to enroll the child in school?
1. No, I did not (GO TO QUESTION 19)
2. Yes I did 2.1. Please explain what you did.
…………………………….................................................................................................................
…………………………….................................................................................................................
19. WHO DECIDED TO SEND (Target child’s name) TO SCHOOL THIS YEAR? WHO WAS MORE
INFLUENTIAL IN THIS DECISION?
19.1. Who decided? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! CAN GET MORE THAN ONE ANSWERS)
1. Mother
8. Grandfather (father’s father)
2. Father
9. Uncle (father’s brother)
3. Step Mother
10. Older sister
4. Step Father
11. Older brother
5. Grandmother (mother’s mother)
12. Uncle (mother’s brother)
6. Grandfather (mother’s father)
13. Aunt (mother’s sister)
7. Grandmother (father’s mother)
Other………………………………………………
19.2. Who was more influential? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! USE THE CODES FROM
THE TABLE)
………………………………........................................................................................................…
20. WHO DECIDED NOT TO SEND (Target child’s name) to school last year? Who was more i
nfluential in the decision to not to send the child to school?
1. Mother
2. Father
9. Uncle (father’s brother)
3. Step Mother
10. Older sister
4. Step Father
11. Older brother
13. Aunt (mother’s sister)
Other………………………………………………
241
20.2. Who was most influential? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! USE THE CODES FROM THE TABLE)
…………………………………
DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! IF THOSE WHO DECIDED ON NOT ENROLLING CHILDREN IN SCHOOL WERE
DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES LIVING AT HOME ASK ABOUT EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD, SEX, AGE
AND JOB.
21. Please provide age, sex, education, job information of those who decided to not enroll (target
child’s name) in school. WHO DO NOT LIVE AT HOUSEOLD.
1. RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD
1. Sibling(older brother/older
sister)
2. Grandmother (mother’s mother) 2. Sex
3. Age
4. Grandmother (Father’s mother) 1. Female
2.
Male
5. Grandfather
6. Uncle (father’s brother
Other(Specify)……………….
1.Who(Specify):……………….
2.Who(Specify):………………..
1
1
4. Educational status
1. No schooling
2. Can read and write, did
not go to school
3. Primary school graduate
4. Middle school graduate
5. High school graduate
6. University graduate
7. Masters/ Doctorate +..
5. Indicate what their job
is?
(DATA COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION! SHOW Card 1)
2
2
22. How did (Target child’s name) spend his/her time last year (2007-2008 academic year) when he/
she was out of school? What did the child do (activities) and how often the child do these activities?
1. ACTIVITY THE CHILD ENGAGED IN:
2.HOW OFTEN DID THE CHILD DO THE ACTIVITY
1. Almost everyday
2. Once-twice a week
3. Once a week
4.Once every two weeks
5. Once a month
6. Less than once a month
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
23. Last year (2007-2008 academic year), did you teach (Target child’s name) any educational
activities? If YES, did you do any of the following?
1. No, we did not teach anything
2. Yes, we taught the child some things, 2.1. Which one (ones) of the following did you teach?
1. Recognizing the letters in the alphabet
2. Writing the letters in the alphabet
3. Writing his/her name
4. Reading
5. Recognizing the letters
6. Counting from 1 to 10
242
8. Counting from 1 to 100 or more
9. Recognizing the colors
10.Recognizing the geometrical shapes
11. Simple mathematical additions and subtractions
Other………………………………………………
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
R
Rarely
24. Think about last year (2007-2008 academic year) when your child was out of school, HOW OFTEN
did your child engage in the following activities I will list within an AVERAGE DAY? Can you please also
indicate activities other than the ones listed below your child engaged in the past year?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! SHOW CARD 2, ROTATE WHICH STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH, AND MARK IN
THE “R” COLUMN OF THE STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH.)
1
1
2
3
4
5
2
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
4
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
7
Learning things related to school(Counting, the alphabet, etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
9
Help with the work where we go to work as seasonal workers
1
2
3
4
5
10
1
2
3
4
5
11
Engaging in activities like art (painting), music
1
2
3
4
5
Other ………………………………………..
1
2
3
4
5
Not influential
Partly influential
It was influential
Very influential
No opinion
(DO NOT READ)
R
Not influential at all
25. Please indicate how influential were the following reasons for your child to NOT START SCHOOL the
previous year. Can you please answer using the scale “1. Not influential at all 5. Very influential” and
looking at the card in front of you?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! SHOW CARD 3, ROTATE WHICH STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH, AND MARK
IN THE “R” COLUMN OF THE STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH!)
1. We had very limited financial opportunities to enroll the child in
school last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. The child had to work and earn money last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Last year there were security problems at the SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. Last year there were security problems in the ROAD to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. Last year, transportation opportunities to school were very
limited
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. Child did not want to attend school the previous year
1
2
3
4
5
6
243
CONTINUED
7. We thought the child was too young to enroll in school last year
1
2
3
8. Last year the child needed to help at home with the housework
(washing, cleaning, looking after younger siblings, etc.)
1
2
9. Last year the child was supposed to help with the work in the field /
garden
1
10. Because the child was too skinny, small for his age and frail, we felt
the child would be the downtrodden one
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. Child was uninterested in school last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. Child was afraid of going to school last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Child was either sick last year or was getting sick too often
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Last year, around the time school started, a family member fell ill
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. Last year, a family member passed away around the time school
started
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. One of the close friends of the child passed away right around the
time the schools started
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Last year, the child had to take care of somebody sick in the household
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. We migrated to somewhere else as a family to work as seasonal
workers
1
2
3
4
5
6
19. We had just moved here last year, so we were unable to register the
child to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
20. We wanted the child to go to school with the sibling who was a year
younger
1
2
3
4
5
6
21. We thought the child would develop better and be more successful
in school if we waited another year
1
2
3
4
5
6
22. Last year there was no school where we lived
1
2
3
4
5
6
23. Last year the child was not toilet trained
1
2
3
4
5
6
24. The child did not want to separate from the mother last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THIS QUESTION TO THOSE WHO HAVE
FEMALE CHILDREN WHO STARTED SCHOOL LATE!)
25. In order for her brother to attend school first, we did not send our
daughter to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
26. We did not want the teacher that was assigned last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other Specify…………………………………………………..
244
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THIS QUESTION ONLY TO THOSE WHO ANSWERED THE STATEMENTS
25.26 AS “We did not want the teacher that was assigned last year” PARTLY INFLUENTIAL, INFLUENTIAL
AND VERY INFLUENTIAL.
26. What are the reasons for not wanting (Target child’s name) to be taught by the teacher last year?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! YOU CAN GET MORE THAN ONE ANSWERS)
1. Because it was female
2. Because it was male
3. We did not think the teacher was a good teacher
4. The teacher was not very understanding toward children
Other………………………………………………………………………………
27. State provides financial support for those who educate their female children. Are you informed of
this?
1. No, I was not informed (GO TO QUESTION 46)
2. Yes, I was informed
………………………………………………………………………………
28. Did you receive any aids? What type of aids did you receive? Did getting this aid help you with the
decision to enroll your child in school
1. No, I did not get it (GO TO QUESTION 46)
2. Yes, I got it,
2.1. What type of aid?..........................................................................
2.2. Did receiving this aid help you enroll your child in school?
1. Yes, it was influential
2. No, not influential
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! GO TO QUESTION 46)
SECTION IV. AUNT (FATHER’S SISTER) QUESTIONS FOR THE CHILDREN WHO ARE CURRENTLY UNENROLLED
IN SCHOOLS
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK QUESTIONS 29 THROUGH 45(Q.45 INCLUDED) FOR CHILDREN WHO
ARE INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE BUT ARE NOT AT THE PRESENT TIME CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN SCHOOLS
29. Children who complete age 6 are enrolled in school in our country. You said that (Target child’s
name) was not in school. Can you tell us why you did not enroll (Target child’s name) in school?
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
30. What needs to change that is related to (Target child’s name) in the upcoming days so that you
would enroll him/her (your child) in school?
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
245
31. What needs to change that is related to your living conditions (such as change of financial
conditions, moving somewhere new, head of the household finding a new job/changing jobs etc.) in the
upcoming days so that you would enroll him/her (your child) in school?
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
32. What would state need to provide for you to enroll (Target child’s name) in school?
1. Removal of getting registration fees for the enrollment children in schools
2. Providing educational scholarships
3. Having a school somewhere close-by
4. Not just providing textbooks, providing all the school materials
Other……………………………………………………..
33. Are you thinking about enrolling your child in school next year?
1. Yes, we are thinking
What made you make such a
about enrolling the child in 1.2.
decision?
school next year:
2.1. How long will you wait to enroll
your child in school?
2. No, we are thinking
about enrolling our child in 2.2. Why aren’t you thinking about
school later:
enrolling your child in school next
year?
3. No, we are not thinking
about enrolling he child in
school at all:
3.1. Can you tell us why do you
think so?
………………………...………………………………………..
………………………...………………………………………..
………………………...………………………………………..
………………………...………………………………………..
34. Did you make any attempts to enroll (Target child’s name) in school? If you did, can you tell us
what you did?
1. No, I did not
2. Yes, yes I did
2.1. Tell us what you did?
………..……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………
35. Was there anybody last year who spoke to you about enrolling 6 year old children in school (mukhtar,
teacher, imam etc.)? If YES, who were they? and what kinds of information did they provide?
1. No, there was nobody (GO TO QUESTION 37)
2. Yes, there was someone/people, 2.1. Who spoke to you?
1. Relative, neighbor, etc., people from around
2. Mukhtar
3. Imam
4. Teachers in the neighborhood
5. Principal of the school in the neighborhood
6. District head official
Other………………………………………………….
246
2.2. What types of information did the person provide/what did the person say?
…………………………….................................................................................................................
……………………………………......................................................................................................
36. Did the person speak to you before or after the registration period? Did you do anything
after getting the information to enroll the child in school? If YES, tell us what you did
1. Spoke prior to the registration period
2. Spoke after the registration period
36.2. After getting the information, did you do anything to enroll the child in school?
1. No, I did not (GO TO QUESTION 37)
2. Yes I did 2.1. Please explain what you did
……………………………................................................................................................................
……………………………………......................................................................................................
37. WHO DECIDED NOT TO Send (Target child’s name) to school last year? Who was more
influential in the decision to not to send the child to school?
1. Mother
2.Father
9.Uncle (father’s brother
3.Step Mother
10.Older sister
4.Step Father
11.Older brother
5.Grandmother (mother’s mother)
12.Uncle (mother’s brother)
6.Grandfather (mother’s father)
13. Aunt
Other………………………………………………
37.2. Who was most influential? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! USE THE
CODES FROM THE TABLE)
DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! IF THOSE WHO DECIDED ON NOT ENROLLING CHILDREN IN SCHOOL
WERE DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES LIVING AT HOME ASK ABOUT EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP TO
CHILD, SEX, AGE AND JOB.
247
38. Please provide age, sex, education, job information of those who decided to not enroll (Target
child’s name) in school WHO DO NOT LIVE AT HOME
1. RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD
1. Sibling(older brother/older
sister)
5. Grandfather
6. Uncle (father’s brother
Other (Specify)……………….
4. Educational status
2.Sex
1. Female
2. Male
1.Who (Specify):……………….
1
2
2.Who (Specify):………………..
1
2
3. Age
1. No schooling
2. Can read and write, did not
go to school
3. Primary school graduate
4. Middle school graduate
5. High school graduate
7. Masters/ Doctorate +..
5. Indicate what their job
is?
(DATA COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION! SHOW Card 1)
39. How does (Target child’s name) spend most of his/her time? What does the child do (activities) and
how often does the child do these activities?
2. HOW OFTEN DID THE CHILD DO THE ACTIVITY
1. ACTIVITY THE CHILD ENGAGED IN
1. Almost everyday
2. Once-twice a week
3. Once a week
4. Once every two weeks
5. Once a month
6. Less than once a month
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
.…………………………………………………
40. Do you teach (Target child’s name) educational activities at home? If YES, which one of the
following did you teach your child?
1. We did not teach anything.
2. Yes, we taught the child some things. 2.1. Which one (ones) of the following did you teach?
1. Recognizing the letters in the alphabet
2. Writing the letters in the alphabet
3. Writing his/her name
4. Reading
5. Recognizing the letters
8. Counting from 1 to 100 or more
9. Recognizing the colors
10. Recognizing the geometrical shapes
11. Simple mathematical additions and subtractions
Other……………………………………………….
248
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
41. HOW OFTEN did your child engage in the following activities I will list within an AVERAGE DAY? Can you
please also indicate activities other than the ones listed below your child engaged in (DATA COLLECTOR,
ATTENTION! SHOW CARD 2, ROTATE WHICH STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH, AND MARK IN THE “R” COLUMN OF THE
STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH.)
1.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
1
2
3
4
5
7.
Learning things related to school (Counting, the alphabet,
etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
8.
1
2
3
4
5
9.
Help with the work where we go to work as seasonal
workers
1
2
3
4
5
10.
1
2
3
4
5
11.
Engaging in activities like art (painting), music
1
2
3
4
5
Other ………………………………………..
1
2
3
4
5
R
Not influential
Partly
influential
It was
influential
Very
influential
No opinion
(DO NOT READ)
R
Not influential
at all
42. Please indicate how influential the following reasons were for your child to NOT START SCHOOL
using the scale “1. Not influential at all 5. Very influential” and looking at the card in front of you?
DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! SHOW CARD 3, ROTATE WHICH STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH, AND MARK IN
THE “R” COLUMN OF THE STATEMENT YOU BEGIN WITH.)
1. Our financial conditions were not sufficient
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. We thought that the child could find jobs even if the child went to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Our child needed to work and earn money instead of attending school
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. It was not appropriate for the child to attend school because of family beliefs
and traditions
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. According to religious beliefs of my family it was wrong for the child to attend
school
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. Child was too young
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. There were safety issues at school
1
2
3
4
5
6
249
Not influential
at all
Not influential
Partly
influential
It was
influential
Very
influential
No opinion
(DO NOT READ)
8. School was far from home
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. Transportation to school was problematic
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 Child did not want to go to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. Child helping around at home (doing the dishes, looking after siblings etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. Child needed to work in the field/garden
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Could not go to school because of illness/disability
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Other families around not sending their children to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. Child was physically immature, skinny and underdeveloped
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. We did not believe female children needed to go to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Boys and girls go to school in mixed classrooms
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. We believe that besides learning to read and write, nothing taught at school was worthwhile
1
2
3
4
5
6
19. Even if the child went to school, the child was still going to live in the village
1
2
3
4
5
6
20. Child was going to get married anyway, there was no need for school
1
2
3
4
5
6
21. Child was not toilet trained to go by himself/herself
1
2
3
4
5
6
22. The child did not want to separate from the mother last year
1
2
3
4
5
6
23. We had just moved here last year, so we were unable to register the child to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
( DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THIS QUESTION TO THOSE WHO HAVE FEMALE
CHILDREN WHO ARE OUT OF SCHOOL!)
24. Girls don’t need to go to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
25. Child had an arranged marriage (“beşik kertmesi” the promise at the cradle) and
the family the child was going to marry into did not approve school
1
2
3
4
5
6
26. In order for her brother to attend school, the female child was not send to school
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONTINUED
27. The child would learn how to read and write during military service, so there
was no need to attend school
28. For reasons related to teachers
Other Specify……………………………………….
250
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THIS QUESTION ONLY TO THOSE WHO ANSWERED THE STATEMENT
42.28 “We did not want the teacher that was assigned last year” AS PARTLY INFLUENTIAL, INFLUENTIAL
AND VERY INFLUENTIAL .
43. (What are the reasons for not enrolling (Target child’s name) to be taught by that teacher?
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! CAN GET MORE THAN ONE ANSWERS)
1. Because it was female
2. Because it was male
3. We did not think the teacher was a good teacher
4. The teacher was not very understanding toward children
Other………………………………………………………………………………
44. Are you informed of the fact that state provides free textbooks for primary school children?
1. Yes, I was informed (GO TO QUESTION 45)
2. No, I was not informed
2.1. If you knew of such an information, would this influence your decision?
1. Yes, It would 2. No, it would not
45. State provides financial support for those who educate their female children. Are you informed of
this?
1. Yes, I was informed (GO TO QUESTION 46)
2. No, I was not informed
2.1. Would you enroll your child in school if you were informed of this?
1. Yes 2. No
DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION WILL BE ASKED TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS!
SECTION V. FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
46. What are the TOTAL expenditures of YOUR FAMILY including kitchen, education, health, etc.?
0. I don’t know/ No answer
1. 200 TL and below
7. 751 – 1000 TL
13. 2501 – 3000 TL
2. 201 – 300 TL
8. 1001 – 1250 TL
14. 3001 – 4000 TL
3. 301 – 400 TL
9. 1251 – 1500 TL
15. 4001 – 5000 TL
4. 401 – 500 TL
10. 1501 – 1750 TL
16. 5001 – 7500 TL
5. 501 – 600 TL
11. 1751 – 2000 TL
17. 7501 – 10000 TL
6. 601 – 750 TL
12. 2001 – 2500 TL
18. 10001 TL and above
251
47. What is the TOTAL income of YOUR FAMILY including kitchen, education, health, etc.?
1. 200 TL and below
7. 751 – 1000 TL
13. 2501 – 3000 TL
2. 201 – 300 TL
8. 1001 – 1250 TL
14. 3001 – 4000 TL
3. 301 – 400 TL
9. 1251 – 1500 TL
15. 4001 – 5000 TL
4. 401 – 500 TL
10. 1501 – 1750 TL
16. 5001 – 7500 TL
5. 501 – 600 TL
11. 1751 – 2000 TL
17. 7501 – 10000 TL
6. 601 – 750 TL
12. 2001 – 2500 TL
18. 10001 TL and above
(DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! ASK THOSE WHOSE TOTAL EXPENDITURES WERE MORE THAN THEIR
INCOME)
48. You just indicated that your expenditures were more than your income. How do you make up
for the difference?
1. Other family members help
2. We always get loans
3. Neighbors help
4. Get loans from the bank
5. Municipality, district head office, charities, etc. provide support
6. We get a sum of payments during certain times from our jobs (harvest time, seasonal work, etc.)
Other…………………………………………………………………….
49. What is the ownership status of the home you live in?
1. Home owner
2. Renter
2.1. Rental price …………….TL
3. Belongs to a relative, no rent paid
4. Housing unit,
4.1. Do you pay rent ?
1. No
2. Yes,
4.1.2.1. Rental price: ………………TL
50. How many meter square is the home you reside in? (Do not include yard, etc. when they live
in a house.) …………........................................................................................................................................
51. Number of rooms (toilet, bathroom not included.) :…………............................................................
52. Does (Target child’s name) have a room of his/her own?
1. No
2. Has a room OF him/her own.
3. Shares a room with the siblings.
252
53. Where are you from? (DATA COLLECTOR, ATTENTION! STATE IT AS A PROVINCE!)
…………................
CONTACT INFORMATION
Our questionnaire is finished. Thank you. The contact information you provide will only be used for data
accuracy checks. Information and your address will all be kept confidential.
PARTICIPANT’S
Name-Last name
Home phone number
Cell phone number
: ................................................................................................................
: .................................................................................................................
: ..................................................................................................................
Interview form for the semi-structured interviews
Good afternoon sir/madame. This is .……………………..GENAR RESEARCH. As you know MONE regulations for
Primary School Institutions state that, children who complete 72 months of age by December 31 of a given
year are admitted into first grades of primary school that academic year. The enrollment of children, who did
not develop well and who are eligible to enroll in schools in terms of their chronological age can be legally
postponed if the parents give a written petition explaining the reasons for their request. Examination of the
records for 2007-2008 academic year for primary school enrollment show that there are a number of children
who were supposed to be in school the previous year, but were enrolled in schools the following academic
year, meaning, this year. In other words, some families do not enroll their children in schools ON TIME, rather
they enroll them in school a year later causing these children to have late enrollment. As GENAR research, we
are conducting a “RESEARCH INVESTIGATING THE REASONS FOR CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME
TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO ACCOMPLISH TIMELY ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN.” I want to ask you some questions
concerning this issue. I would be delighted if you could give me some of your time and answer my questions.
Thank you for your time.
Name of the participant:
Date of the interview:
Start and time of the interview:
………………………………………………………………………
..…./…..../2009
…..:…..
/
…..:…..
The institution participant works for:
……………………………………………………………………
Position of the participant in the institution:
……………………………………………………………………
253
Name and the last name of the participant:
………………………………………………………………………
Province the interview was conducted:
………………………………………………………………………
District of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Neighborhood of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Street of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Building number of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Apartment number of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Phone number of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Fax number of the institution:
………………………………………………………………………
Phone number of the participant:
………………………………………………………………………
GSM number of the participant:
………………………………………………………………………
Web address:
………………………………………………………………………
e-mail address:
………………………………………………………………………
PROBLEM
s.1. Article 15 of the Regulations for Primary Schools of Ministry of National Education state that
“Children who are 72 months old by 31 of December of a given academic year are eligible to enroll
in elementary schools that academic year. Even though a child is eligible to enroll in school based
on his or her chronological age, if a parent applies with a written request to delay entry to school, a
child’s enrollment can be postponed for one year.”
1. Did you know Article 15 of the Regulations for Primary Schools of Ministry of National Education?
(ATTENTION DATA COLLECTOR: DO NOT ASK THIS QUESTION WHEN THE PARTICIPANT IS A TEACHER,
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, INSPECTOR, OR DISTRICT/PROVINCE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL EDUCATION)
1. No (GO TO QUESTION 2!)2. Yes
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
2. Do you think Article 15 of the Regulations for Primary Schools of Ministry of National Education
used in effect at schools? If so, can you tell us how it is in effect at schools (For example, who
decides a child is not mature enough for school? What is suggested if a child is considered to be
too small for his/her age, etc.)?
1. Yes, it is used in effect
2. No, it is not used in effect
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………...............
……………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………
………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………
254
3. Do you think the families are misusing the Article 15 of the Regulations for Primary Schools of
Ministry of National Education for one reason or the other? If YES, can you elaborate on this?
(INTERVIEWER ATTENTION! DO NOT ASK THIS QUESTION WHEN THE INTERVIEWEE IS A PARENT)
1. No
2. Yes
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………
…………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………...............................................................................................................
s.2. As I mentioned to you earlier it came to our understanding that some children who were
supposed to be enrolling in school in the 2007-2008 academic year, were not enrolled that year, but
were enrolled in schools the following year, in 2008-2009 academic year (in other words, this year).
This indicates that some children enrolled in school with a year delay. Did you know that there was a
problem of late enrollment in Turkey? Can you talk about your views on this?
1. Yes
2. No
……………………………………………….....…………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........................
s.3. Do you know of anybody in the area you work (district, province, village) who did not enroll in
school even though that child was born in 2001 and was supposed to be in school LAST YEAR (20072008 academic year)? If there are, can you tell us how these children spend their time during the day?
1.Knowing a child who was not enrolled in school on time:
1. No there is not (GO TO QUESTION 4!)
2. I don’t know (GO TO QUESTION 4!)
3. Yes, there is
2.How do these children who are not enrolled in school on time spend their times when they are
not in school?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....................................
255
NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOLS ON TIME AND PROVINCE/DISTRICT RELATED QUESTIONS
s.4. Why do you think children start first grade later, not when they are at the age of 6?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………… .....................................................................
s.5. In the area you live (province/district, village), what do you think are the factors contributing
to children NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME? When you assess each of the cultural, social,
economical, environmental, institutional reasons, educational problems, and child’s own
characteristics, how do you think they all contribute to the problem? Which factors do you think are
contributing more to the problem? Please explain, and also make sure to speculate on the possible
reasons.
1. How do cultural factors such as traditions, religious beliefs, gender discrimination, and the value
families place on their children all contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………......................................................................................................................
2. How do factors such as those related to beliefs about educational system, attitudes of other
families toward education, views of family elders, number of children in the household all
contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………......................................................................................................................
3. How do factors such as family income, economical value of children such as children
contributing to family income by working (working in the fields, gardens, selling items in the
street such as tissues, etc.) helping families around the house (in the field, garden, household
chores), high costs of educational expenditures all contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN
SCHOOL ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………......................................................................................................................
256
4. How do environmental factors such as schools being too far from where children live,
conditions of living in rural areas, safety problems on roads or in the areas families live in, all
contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………….......................................................................................................................
5. How do factors related to misinformation or misguidance of the families about the legal age for
school enrollment, not having early childhood education opportunities in the region all contribute
to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....
6. How do factors related to general educational problems such as schools being too far,
transportation problems, sizes of classrooms limited numbers of teachers and the quality of
teachers all contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................................
7. How do factors such as the disabilities of children at school age, having an illness, or not
developing well physically compared to his/her peers, all contribute to CHILDREN NOT ENROLLING
IN SCHOOL ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………….......................................................................................................................
257
8. Which one of these factors do you think are more influential? Please discuss the possible
reasons as well.
1. Cultural factors
2. Social factors
3. Economical reasons
4. Environmental conditions
5. Institutional reasons
6. Overall problems in the field of education
7. The child’s own characteristics
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..........
s.6. Do you think the factors that are contributing to children not enrolling in school on time and
their reasons are the same for boys and girls? If they are different, talk about how by focusing on
the reasons (effects of gender discrimination on not enrolling in school on time)?
1. Yes
2. No
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………....................................................................................................................................
s.7. Do you think families where you are currently assigned to work (districts, provinces, villages)
are preparing their children for school? If they are not, in what areas do you think children are not
prepared or not very mature?
1. Do families prepare their children for school?
1. Yes
2. No
2. What are the limitations of families in preparing their children for school?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
s.8. According to the regulations for primary schools, children who are 72 months of age (6 years
old) are eligible to start school. Do you think people where you work (province, district, and village)
have accurate knowledge about the school enrollment age for primary schools? Why do you think
so? Do you think this is contributing to children’s NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOLS ON TIME?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
258
1. Do parents know what the legal age for school enrollment is?
1. Yes
2. No
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
2. What is the basis of your opinion? Is the information you just provided based on a solid data/
information or is it based on your guess/speculation?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
3. Do you think this misinformation contributing to children not enrolling in school on time?
1. Yes
2. No
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
ACTIVITIES OR WORK DONE UP TO THIS POINT TOWARD THE SOLUTION OF THIS PROBLEM
s.9. Are there families who ask you for information on enrolling children in schools, primary school
enrollment age, or similar issues? Can you talk about this issue?
1. No, there are no families (GO TO QUESTION 10!)
2. Yes, there are families
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………….......................................................................................................
s.10. Does the institution you work for have any ongoing activities about ENROLLING CHILDREN IN
SCHOOLS ON TIME? If there are, can you talk about what types of activities they have?
(INTERVIEWER ATTENTION! PLEASE MAKE SURE THE PARTICIPANTS DON’T CONFUSE THESE ACTIVITIES
WITH THE WORK DONE ABOUT ISSUES ABOUT NO ENROLLLMENT)
1. Do you have any activities?
1.No
2.Yes
2. What types of activities did you do?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………….......................................................................................................
259
s.11. Do you think these activities help contribute children enrolling in schools ON TIME? Please talk
about these contributions and why you think they contribute.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………….......................................................................................................
s.12. Do you think these efforts/work are enough to reach a solution? Can you discuss your opinions
on the reasons?
1. Yes, satisfactory
2. No, not satisfactory
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………….......................................................................................................
s.13. Do you have suggestions outside of what is currently done to solve the problem? If SO, can you
talk about your recommendations/suggestions? If NOT, can you explain why? Is it because you find
what is already done sufficient and good quality work?
1. No, there is not (GO TO QUESTION 14!)
1.1. Do you want to talk about what was done and what the reasons were?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………….............................................................................................................................................
2. Yes, there is
1.2. What are the recommendations for the solution of the problem?
………………………..……………………………………..................................................................................................
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………........................................................................................................
How do you think the work, the campaigns or the activities that are done to solve the problem
passed down to people? Which channels do you think are more effective?
260
1. What are some of the communication channels to pass these announcements/information to
people:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………......................................................................................................
2. Most effective way to pass information/announcements to people?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………......................................................................................................
s.14. What do you think the roles and responsibilities of mukhtars, teachers, local government,
NGOs, imams, religious officials, doctors or nurses for children to enrolling schools on time?
1. Mukhtars …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Teachers …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Local governments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Non-governmental organizations …………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Imams/religious employees …………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Doctors/nurses…………………………………………………………………..……………….……………….................
……………………………………………………………………………………................................................................
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
s.15.Can you please talk about anything else you want to mention before we finish our interview?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
261
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE PARTICIPANT
d.1. Sex? (Data collector, ATTENTION, code it without asking!)
1. Female
2.Male
d.2. Your age? …………………………….
d.3. Education?
1. Cannot read or write
2. Can read and write
3. Completed elementary school
4. Completed middle school
5. Completed high school
7. Masters/Doctorate
d.4. What is your actual occupation?
…………………………………………………………….....................................................................................................
d.5. How long have you been working at your current job?:
………………………………………………………………...................................................................................................
Thank you, our interview ended. Your address and phone number we took, will be used to
for accuracy check to determine quality of this study check the accuracy and will be kept
confidential. Thank you…
Focus Grup Meeting discussion guide
262
Focus Group Meeting Discussion
Guide
problem is quite high in our country. If we are to
analyze this problem in detail;
Warming up-Greeting
• What do you think the magnitude of this problem
in the town/city/village you live/work in? How do you
think the number of children in where you live/work
who is out of school even though they are supposed to
be in, compare to number of children experiencing the
same problem in the country?
Hello, we are meeting today to talk about and get your
valuable input on the issue of children not enrolling
school even though they are at the legal age for
school enrollment
As you know, according to MONE Primary Schools
Regulations, children who are at or above 72 months
of age by December 31 of the year, are accepted
into first grade in elementary schools. For example,
children born in 2001, are supposed to enroll
school in 2007-2008 academic year. However, even
though these children are eligible in terms of their
chronological age, if they are not mature enough
physically, they can be held from school for a year if
a legal guardian gives a written petition asking for it.
In this project, the situation of children who are at
the legal age for school, but not enrolled in examined
under the issue of “not enrolling in school on time.”
In other words, this project covers children who were
born in 2001 and were supposed to be in school in
2008-2009 school year, but their record indicated no
enrollment for that school year. It was seen that some
families did not enroll their children to school when
they were at the legal age for enrollment, but had
enrolled their children to school the following year. As
GENAR research team, we are conducting a research
both “TO EXAMINE THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
DELAYED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN THE PROVINCES THIS
PROBLEM IS EXPERIENCED THE MOST, AND TO DEVELOP
STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE TIMELY ENROLLMENT TO
SCHOOL.” During this meeting, we are going to have
a discussion on late enrollment and not enrolling
children to school when legally eligible, and what can
be done to solve these problems. Thank you for your
time and sharing your thoughts with us.
Introduction
1. Just like it was mentioned earlier, children who
are at the legal age for school enrollment (at or
above 72 months of age) but not enrolled in school
are experiencing “not enrolling school on time.”
Percentage of children who are experiencing this
• Do you think families see not enrolling in school on
time, in other words, not enrolling when a child is 72
months of age as a problem?
• Do you think other elements of the society such as
NGOs, media, local governments, are aware of the
magnitude of this problem?
2. As you know children who are at or above 72
months of age on a given year are eligible to enter first
grade. Do you think legal guardians are aware of this
information about age eligibility to enter school?
REASONS FOR NOT ENROLLING IN SCHOOL
WHEN LEGALLY ELIGIBLE
3. If we wanted to specify the reasons for not
enrolling children in school on time as cultural, social
and economical reasons when you think about the
characteristics of the region you live in, which one of
these factors do you think would be more influential
and how? Can you talk about this some? Please
discuss these giving examples you can share here. For
example…
• Can you talk about soci-cultural factors?
• Are there factors associated with women’s place
in society? What would they be? Are there religious
factors? What would they be?
• Are there economical factors? What would they be?
• Are factors associated with children’s health and
development significant reasons?
• Can the importance families place on education be a
significant factor?
• Can schools being far away and having difficulty
going back and forth to school be a significant factor?
263
• Do you think overall problems with education are
significant factors here?
• Are environment, location, transportation significant
factors?
4. So, when you consider all what we have talked
about, in the city / town / village where you live, what
is the most important reason for not being able to
start on time?
(ATTENTION! If the people in the group are focusing
only on one issue, then ask question 5 as well)
5. Besides…………………..as a factor influencing why
children do not enroll school when legally eligible,
what is the next most important factor?
PROVINCE/REGION BASED EVALUATIONS
6. What are the factors in the region associated with
children not enrolling school when eligible:
• Do other educational problems in (Name of the
province) cause late enrollment? If so can you talk
about what these are.
• Do environmental conditions, regional climatic
conditions, or other factors influence children’s timely
enrollment in schools? If so can you talk about these
factors?
• Do you think cultural, traditional and religious beliefs
of the people living in the region as well as their
language are contributing to children not enrolling in
schools on time? If so, can talk about these factors?
7. What are the factors influencing familial decisions
about decisions to educate children?
8. Who are the people families in the region talk to or
get guidance from when they are deciding about the
education of their children?
9. What is the most effective way of communicating
any messages or information to the people in the
revision? How should news or the information of the
work done on this issue be passed on to local people?
10. According to Article 15 of Ministry of National
Education Regulations for Primary Schools state that:
“Children who are 72 months old by 31 of December
of a given academic year are eligible to enroll in
264
elementary schools that academic year. Even though
a child is eligible to enroll in school based on his or her
chronological age, if a parent applies with a written
request to delay entry to school, a child’s enrollment
can be postponed for one year.”
• What are the families’ knowledge regarding this
article?
• Is Article 15 used in schools?
• How is Article 15 used in schools? (Who decides
whether the child is well developed, or not? If and how
are the parents of children who are enrolled in early
childhood institutions guided? etc…)?
WHAT IS DONE UP TO THIS DAY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM
11. As a representative of the institution or personally
did you do anything up to this day to solve this
problem? Are there any projects, or work done in
which you participated? Can you talk about these a
little?
12. What are your recommendations for the children
to enroll in schools on time?
• General recommendations for the things need to be
done in the entire nation?
• Recommendations at the level of the district/
province for the solution of this problem?
13. What are the responsibilities of people and
institutions to resolve this issue?
• Mukhtar and religious officials
• Inspectors, principles of schools, teachers
• District head official, governors etc.
• Non-governmental organizations
• Parents
• MONE officials
• Local media representatives
• Elders or those whose opinions mattered in the
province/district
THANK YOU…
APPENDIX – III REPORT OF THE
“WORKSHOP ABOUT DEVELOPING
STRATEGIES TO ENSURE TIMELY
ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN IN PRIMARY
SCHOOLS.”
1. PARTICIPANTS OF THE WORKSHOP
Participants of the workshop were scholars
specializing in education, or related fields, the
provincial practitioners such as inspectors, school
principals and teachers, and the representatives of
non-governmental organizations.
Those attending the workshop were:
• Ministry of National Education
* Deputy Director of MONE Primary Schools General
Directorate Ahmet Murat ALTUĞ, Department Head
Mehmet GÜRBÜZ, Branch Manager Niyazi KAYA and
teachers Zeynep YILDIRIM, Hediye ATICI ARICAN, Cenk
TEMEL, Nevzat ÜNSAL, Uğur KARAMAN and Nesrin
ŞANLI,
and teachers: Fisun SEÇKİN, Kazım BAŞEKMEKÇİ, Ergin
ZORLU, Bilal GÜR, Sibel SAKIZCI, Ercan USTA, Serap
YÜKSEL, Derya GÜVEN, Meltem VURAL, Abdullah GEÇİT,
Şebnem TUNA SIRKINTI, Aliye TOK, Hüseyin KARTAL,
* MONE Director of Strategy Development Board Nezir
ÜNSAL,
* Branch Manager Bahattin ÖZGER from MONE General
Directorate of Pre-School Education
• Academics
* Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty Dr. Ali BABAHAN,
* Ankara University, School of Education Faculty Prof.
Dr. Necla KURUL, Assocciate Prof. Dr. Fatma HAZIR
BIKMAZ, Assist. Prof. Dr. Cem BABADOĞAN, and Lecturer
Dürdane BAYRAM
* Boğaziçi University, School of Education Faculty,
Assist. Prof. Dr. Nalan BABÜR,
* Hacettepe University Prof. Dr. Hülya ÇINGI, Associate
Prof. Kasım KARATAŞ,
• UNICEF
* Harran University Assist. Prof. Dr. İbrahim KORUK,
* Fatma ÖZDEMİR ULUÇ, Ertan KARABIYIK, Nur IŞIKLI,
and Didem AKAN
* Middle East Technical University, School of Education
Faculty Assist. Prof. Dr. Hanife AKAR,
• GENAR Research Company
There were 53 invited discussants for the workshop.
Of these invited discussants, 46 of them participated
in the workshop including 4 of them from UNICEF, 7
from GENAR Research, 9 from General Directorate of
Primary Education, 1 person from General Directorate
of Strategy Development, 3 representatives from
NGOs, 8 academics, 1 primary school inspector, and 12
principals and teachers. Seven invited guests were not
able to participate for various excuses.
* Girne American University, School of Education Dean
Prof. Dr. Tanju GÜRKAN, Yıldız Teknik University Faculty
Assist. Prof. Dr. İbrahim DEMİR, Boğaziçi University
Faculty Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayşegül METİNDOĞAN WISE,
GENAR General Manager Mustafa ŞEN, Statistics expert
Talin EVYAPAN, reporter Funda DEMİR, and reporter
Ayhan KÖSE From GENAR Research Company
• NGOs
* Salim SAĞLAM from Education Reform Initiative
* Seda YILMAZ from Mother Child Education Foundation
(MCEF, AÇEV)
* Özgür ÇETİNKAYA from Cooperative for Development
Workshop
• EDUCATORS of MONE
* MONE Primary School Inspectors, school principal
2. THE OBJECTIVE:
One of the problems related to schooling in Turkey
is late enrollment. In order to examine this problem
from various perspectives, the Ministry of National
Education and UNICEF organized a “Strategy
Development Workshop for Ensuring on-time
Enrollment to Primary Education” in 20-21 November
2009. The aim of this workshop was to assess the
current situation, to profile families whose children
did not enroll in schools on-time, and to develop
265
solutions. First, the findings of research conducted
by GENAR with support of the Ministry of National
Education and UNICEF were shared in the workshop.
Then participants discussed the findings and
exchanged their expert opinions.
3. WORKSHOP AGENDA
After the opening on the first day of the workshop,
the objective, method, implementation and problems
faced during the implementation of the study were
shared with workshop participants by Mustafa ŞEN
and Assist. Prof. Dr. İbrahim DEMİR. The research
findings were next presented by Assist. Prof. Dr.
Ayşegül METİNDOĞAN WISE. Discussion about the
results of the research followed the presentation.
During the discussion, the workshop participants’
questions and comments were taken, and all the
workshop participants evaluated the study findings
and had a general discussion. After presentations
and discussions, two separate workshop groups
were formed under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Tanju
GÜRKAN. The first group met under the moderation
of Prof. Dr. Tanju GÜRKAN and discussed the issues
that were covered under the title of “Strategy
Development Pertaining to the Detection and Solution
of Issues Related to Teachers, Educational Processes,
Resources, and Applications.” The second group met
under the moderation of Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayşegül
METİNDOĞAN WISE and discussed the issues that were
covered under the title of “Strategy Development
Pertaining to the Detection of Social, Cultural and
Economical Factors Contributing to the Problem,
Awareness and Education of Parents and Local
People, and Developing Solutions.” As a result of these
discussions, group presentations were prepared by
workshop groups to be shared with all the workshop
participants.
On the second day, the discussions and the progress
made on the first day were evaluated, followed
by group presentations. Both workshop groups
presented their work and participants asked question
and suggested solutions. Prof. Dr. Tanju GÜRKAN
summarized the results of both groups and offered
some general conclusions.
266
4. IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND
THEIR POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS DEVELOPED
BY WORKSHOP GROUPS
1. STRATEGY DEVELOPING GROUP A: STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT PERTAINING TO THE DETECTION
AND SOLUTION OF ISSUES RELATED TO TEACHERS,
EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES, RESOURCES, AND
APPLICATIONS
1.1.PROBLEM ANALYSIS
1. Article 15 is not clear enough and does not provide
sufficient guidance.
2. Resources of primary schools are limited. 3. Early
childhood education opportunities are limited
3. Early childhood education opportunities are limited.
4. The research on equalities-inequalities is limited.
5. Teacher training programs in universities are
inadequate for preparing teachers for the realities of
rural communities.
6. Due to heavy workloads, Guidance and Research
Centers (GRCs) are inadequate to reach children who
do not enroll in schools on time (children who enroll in
schools after delaying and those who are unenrolled).
1.2. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTORS WHO CAN WORK
AND STRATEGIES FOR THE SOLUTION
1.2.1. PROBLEMS WITH ARTICLE 15
1. The shortcomings in the implementation
of Article 15.
2. The absence of a guiding policy to promote and
advertise Article 15 clearly to school administrators,
teachers, mukhtars (village headmen), parents and
other stakeholders.
3. Lack of information to screen for identifying
unenrolled children.
4. Lack of the awareness of civil administrative
supervisors and other actors about the issues of
unenrollment and late enrollment.
5. The abstention of teachers in bringing children
back to schools in cases of unenrollment and late
enrollment for various reasons (communication,
cooperation, lack of resources, etc.)
6. Lack of cooperation among social actors
(citizenship bureaus, health directorates, governing
offices, municipalities, MONE directorates, NGOs, etc.).
1.2.2. STRATEGICAL PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH ARTICLE 15
1. Developing awareness and working toward
spreading efforts for implementation.
• Improving the role of schools
• Using media effectively
• Sending letters / flyers (easy to read and
informative) out to the parents
• The following information should be in the letters/
flyers;
* Necessity of completing the final enrollment of
children after automatic registration by MONE *
Implementation of 72 months as the age of starting
school
* School enrollment information
* School registration is free
* Distribution of free textbooks
2. Presentation of various relief organizations (of
course materials, uniforms, free nutritional aids,
etc.) Current enrollment rates and late enrollment
of children should be analyzed carefully and policies
should be developed to ensure timely enrollment of
children.
3. District officials and other actors in the districts
where new school enrollment rates are low should
be trained to understand realities of and factors
associated with late enrollment.
• Letters that invite parents to enroll their children in
schools should be prepared and sent out.
• Letters should contain information about the law
regarding the change of residence and the clarification
of legal sanctions in the case of failure to inform the
state of such changes.
• Organizing meetings for the social actors that would
create synergy and allow them to share information
and knowledge to develop solutions.
4. Local governments, municipalities need to be more
active and involved in working towards producing
solutions to identified needs
• When schools need land to expand, legalities
267
concerning expropriation issues need to be simplified
and made less complicated
• Children’s transportation and access to schools need
to be ensured.
1.2.3. ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIMITED
RESOURCES IN PRIMARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
1. Lack of resources
• Lack of equipment, lack of space and classrooms
• Transportation issues (transportation security,
the distance to school, seasonal weather related
conditions/challenges)
2. The issues with educators
• School based issues
* Overcrowded classrooms
* Lack of educational resources
* Lack of guidance and counseling teachers
* Lack of special education teachers
* Classroom teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills for the education and treatment of
children with special needs
• Student-based issues
* Language problems
* Lack of knowledge about socio-emotional development
* Health and nutrition problems
• Issues based on teachers’ needs
* Teachers’ mobility in the region
* Social and economic problems of teachers
* Teachers’ need for pre-service and in-service training.
3. Issues related to Parent-teacher associations
• Communication problems between teachers and
parents
• Lack of communication with parents after automatic
registration
• Teachers’ lack of communication and cooperation
skills
268
1.2.4. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTIONS
OF THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LIMITED
RESOURCES IN PRIMARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
1. Creation of standards in providing school equipment
and other resources based on the needs of the people
in the region.
2. During strategic planning for schools, resources
needed by the schools need to be emphasized, and
common needs of the actors need to be identified.
3. Investment plans of special provincial
administrations should be focused on the troubled and
densely populated regions.
4. Creation of a system that evaluates social and
psychological development of children in order to
make decisions about whether these children are
ready for the demands of schools.
5. Teachers should be provided with pre-service and
in service training opportunities to deal with issues
concerning bringing unenrolled children back to
schools, promoting student attendance, education of
children with dyslexia, etc.
1.2.5. PROBLEM OF LIMITED EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
1. Lack of physical space and facilities (toys,
cardboards, craft materials, supporting staff, etc...) in
early childhood educational institutions.
2. Language problems
3. Nutritional problems that adversely affect children’s
mental and physical development
4. Lack of awareness of the families concerning the
importance of early childhood education
5. Lack of cooperation with health institutions about
healthy development children as well as identification
of at-risk children.
6. Teachers’ lack of basic skills and knowledge
regarding the education of at-risk students and
inclusive education.
1.2.6. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM OF LIMITED EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
1. In the short term, instead of institutional early
childhood education in the areas where there is no early
childhood educational institutions, new models that
are addressing the unique needs of the regions must be
developed and implemented.
1.2.8. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTION OF
THE LIMITED RESEARCH ON REGIONAL EQUALITY
1. The addition of a new module to e- school system to
monitor school enrollment activities of children.
2. Activities need to be started to include the
participation of all actors to promote need-based,
local, short and long-term solutions.
2. Good examples, such as the AÇEV summer school, can
be models for short-term solutions.
3. In the areas where seasonal agricultural worker
families are found most:
3. In the long term, compulsory early childhood
education policies must be created, implemented and
disseminated.
• Children of migrant workers should be able to stay at
regional boarding schools (YİBOs) where their parents
work. Because these migrant workers stay mainly in
tents, various solutions that are unique in addressing
their own problems such as placement of these
children in schools near their family tents should be
considered.
4. Two-year long early childhood education
opportunities should be developed for students who
cannot speak Turkish.
5. Nutritional policies that are practiced in preschools
should be developed and disseminated.
6. GRCs should screen children to identify children
with dyslexia and healthcare institutions must screen
preschool age children to determine developmental
problems and delays, nutritional deficits and mental
retardation.
7. To increase GRCs performance in completing these
identified duties, their workloads must be reduced and
staff numbers should be increased.
1.2.7.PROBLEMS WITH LIMITED RESEARCH ON
REGIONAL EQUALITY
1. Lack of research about the education of children of
migrant and seasonal workers.
2. Lack of research about rural development policy,
educational equality and access to education for rural
children.
3. Lack of research to develop strategies to promote
unenrolled or late entrant children’s attendance in
schools
1.2.9. ISSUES WITH TEACHER TRAINING POLICIES
THAT LACK PREPARATION OF TEACHERS FOR THE
REALITIES OF RURAL AREAS
1. The curriculum in faculties of education seem to be
insufficient in terms of preparing teacher candidates
to deal with local problems and issues such as
unenrollment, late enrollment and equality education.
2. Lack of cooperation between faculties of education
and schools in need in terms of planning internship
activities
3. Limited number of trained guidance and counseling
and special education teachers
1.2.10. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTION
OF THE ISSUES WITH TEACHER TRAINING POLICIES
THAT LACK PREPARATION OF TEACHERS FOR THE
REALITIES OF RURAL AREAS
1. Policies should be developed to ensure cooperation
between faculties of education and primary schools
that are in need
• Increasing internship opportunities for prospective
teachers in these schools
269
• Community Service courses within the faculties of
education could be used to bring service to schools
and families in need
2. Training of teacher candidates that focus on how to
communicate with parents in these rural regions with
limited opportunities.
3. In the framework of cooperation with the Ministry
of Education, faculties of education can develop
programs that promote timely enrollment and
attendance of children in schools. These programs can
be developed for pre-service, novice and experienced
teachers.
4. Training of more guidance and counseling teachers
at the undergraduate level should be targeted. When
appointing guidance and counseling teachers, schools
in need can be given priority.
1.2.11. PROBLEMS GRCS FACE IN ACCESSING
CHILDREN WITH NO ENROLLMENT AND DELAYED
ENROLLMENT
1. Excessive workload
2. Lack of staff
270
3. Lack of rural studies.
• Target audience is limited to the center and the
village near to the center
• Limited studies in terms of family education.
1.2.12. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE PROBLEMS
GRCS FACE IN ACCESSING CHILDREN WITH NO
ENROLLMENT AND DELAYED ENROLLMENT
1. Policies should be developed to ensure the training
of qualified educators to work in GRCs
2. Development of policies that make working in GRCs
more attractive in order to increase employment in
GRCs
2. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP B:
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PERTAINING
TO THE DETECTION OF SOCIAL,
CULTURAL AND ECONOMICAL FACTORS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM,
AWARENESS AND EDUCATION OF PARENTS
AND LOCAL PEOPLE, AND DEVELOPING
SOLUTIONS
2.1.PROBLEM ANALYSIS
In order to target the child, parent, social, cultural,
economical factors related to the problem of late
enrollment and propose possible solutions for the
problem, both macro- and micro- systems and
the problems within these systems need to be
understood that include the embedded and interactive
relationships of the people, institutions, societal
norms and belief structures with the child in the
center.
• Children
• Health and development
• Mothers’ education
• Fathers’ education
• Teacher training
• Early childhood education• Educational institutions
• Article 15
• Committee-board-office work
• Serving to the needs of children who are not enrolled
in primary schools on time
• Language
• Media
• National awareness
• Belief systems
2.2. DEFINING ACTORS AND STRATEGIES
FOR SOLUTION
2.2.1.CHILDREN AND THE ISSUE OF CHILD HEALTH
AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Not having a child-centered perspective for the
analysis of the problem
2. Place of children in society and perspectives about
children.
3. Financial challenges/difficulties
4. Child labor
5. Birth registration problem
6. The number of children in families
7. Problems experienced in monitoring of child health
and development, in improvement of child health and
development and in informing families.
2.2.2 STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE ISSUE OF
CHILDREN, CHILD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Child poverty and its consequences need to be
better understood and better fought against.
2. Adoption of a child-centered perspective
3. Prevention of child labor (the law that allows for the
employment of 14 year old children in light work must
be changed)
4. Collaboration with state registrars’ office is needed
to determine the status of unregistered children
5. Emancipation and individuation of children need to
be promoted
6. Reasons for why chi ldren do not want to go to
school need to be understood
7. Strategies need to be developed to make schools
more attractive
8. Quality of early childhood and primary education
need to be improved
9. Quality child health and development monitoring
systems need to be developed within the “School
Health” programs
10. Informing families about the development of their
children in their language at the level they understand
need to be provided.
11. Health promoting schools project need to be made
more effective and its quality need to be improved
12. Budget problem needs to be resolved
13. Various solutions such as having school physicians,
need to be considered
14. School health project practices need to be
implemented in coordination with the health centers.
15. Rehabilitation centers need to be improved. Their
work need to be monitored, assessed and guided.
• Work needs to be done to reduce the number of
children in the families in favor of children
* Families should be taught about the economic and
social burden of having too many children.
* Birth control campaigns should be maintained.
* Birth control methods should be easily accessible.
271
* There should be more work to fight against men
having multiple wives.
• Services need to be provided to meet the needs of
children with disabilities.
* Inclusion / quality
of National Defense in order to educate young men
during their military service about the importance
of early childhood education, timely enrollment of
children in schools, education of girls and government
support for poor families who cannot afford to educate
their children.
2.2.3. ISSUES RELATED TO PARENTS
10. Faculties of education can be consulted to get help
in training the trainers who will take part in teaching
military personnel
1. Lack of educational opportunities for parents
2. The illiteracy problem
3. Lack of occupational skills
4. Lack of parenting skills
5. Difficulties in reaching and educating fathers.
6. The ties between parents and other social partners
that can communicate with them, are not effective
2.2.4. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR ISSUES RELATED
TO PARENTS
2.2.5. ISSUES RELATED TO TEACHERS
4. Ensuring the participation of both mothers and
fathers
1. Teachers’ lack of information about the
communities and the at-risk groups they work for
2. The lack of ties they have with families
3. Not preferring to work in the region
4. Not participation in the screening work
5. Inadequate training of teachers
6. Shortage of qualified teachers to educate and train
parents.
7. Difficulties in establishing bonds among parents,
schools and teachers
5. Programs that are designed to ensure awareness for
parents should be conducted with a collaborative work
of mukhtars, religious officials and health workers.
2.2.6. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR ISSUES RELATED
TO TEACHERS
1. Planning of training programs about child
development (children with and without disabilities)
for families
2. Provision of literacy training
3. Providing courses that provide occupational training
for parents
6. Developing strategies that aim at behavioral
change.
7. Implementation of father support programs
• Since they are a more difficult target group to reach
to train, more original and divers programs needed to
be developed
• Designing workshops for fathers: training and
education of the fathers while they are taught various
skills
8. Using mosques, cafes (“kahvehane” that mainly
men go to in rural areas) and other areas where
fathers usually go to, should be used to reach and
educate fathers.
9. In the framework of father education, Ministry of
National Education should cooperate with the Ministry
272
11. Faculties of education can be consulted to get help
in designing of the educational materials to be used in
military bases during the training of men serving in the
military
1. Teachers need to establish cooperation with
families, and they need to get familiar with the
community.
2. Cohesion needs to be built between teachers and
families.
3. Teachers need to stay in the region for longer
periods.
• Efforts need to be put into developing incentives and
encouragement for the teacher to stay longer in the
region (for example, getting promotional payments or
awards for working in the region for 5 (five) years).
4. Work more effectively in screening efforts.
5. MONE needs to put forward more effective and
intensive in-service training for teachers.
6. Training of teachers about community service
• Selecting staff from qualified people to give adult
training and education,
• Looking for the certificates of teaching and adult
education in people who give training,
• Training programs need to be standardized.
2.2.7. PROBLEMS WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
1. Budget problems
2. Problems related to school bussing systems and
YİBOs (Regional Boarding Schools)
• Quality
• Accessibility/ transportation
• Legislation
• Their impacts on child development
3. Problems experienced between school and family
relationships
4. Problems in primary schools
• Quality
• Accessibility/transportation
• Lack of teachers
• Overcrowded classrooms
5. Lack of early childhood education
6. Problems experienced with Article 15
7. Lack of commissions and committees directly
dealing with the late enrollment problems
2.2.8. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE PROBLEMS
WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
1. Food given in YİBOs and bussing system must be
inspected in terms of hygiene and quality.
2. The companies that provide food services must be
held responsible for the hygene of the food, where the
food is served and the environment.
3. Deficit of guidance and counseling teachers
who work in school-bussing program need to be
eliminated. These schools that participate in schoolbussing programs need to serve for the needs of both
children and their families.
4. The impacts of YİBOs on children and families
should be researched.
5. Legislative changes must be done in school-bussing
program.
6. Clarification of criteria for schools and bringing a
standardization to educational institutions (developing
and implementing minimal standards of quantity and
quality).
7. Increasing parent teacher association activities
8. The job descriptions must be done for the teams
that work in screening, identifying and persuasion
activities.
9. Ensuring families to take part in the school process
(most convenient hours devoted to such work could be
guidance and social and club activity hours).
10. Schools should provide occupational and skill
training.
11. MONE needs to reevaluate its policies for the
use of its financial resources and how effectively its
financial resources are used (reevaluation of providing
every child free textbooks, and using the findings of
this research for developing other effective methods).
12. Schools should be more easily accessible.
13. Early childhood education
• Enough resources from the budget need to be
allocated,
• Should be compulsory, it should be widespread in the
country and the quality needs to be improved,
• Quality standards needs to be introduced,
• Better quality activities need to be provided in order
for the child to explore his or her needs and areas of
interest.
14. ARTICLE 15
• Teachers should be better able to explain Article 15
to families,
• Studies should be done toward effective
implementation of existing regulations and laws,
• Sending mails to parents with information and a note
saying “it is time for your child to enroll in school”,
• Carrying out work aimed at teaching parents how to
calculate their children’s age for school (72 months),
• The first week of schools (week of primary
education) to be spent like a fair or a festival,
• Ensuring the implementation of legislations by civil
authorities,
15. Works of commissions, committees and boards
• The establishment of committees in rural areas to
ensure timely enrollment of children schools.
• The board works could be started in MONE to ensure
273
timely enrollment of children.
• Participation of various social stakeholders to work
in these committees need to be ensured (parents,
teachers, mukhtars, religious officials, NGOs, etc.).
2.2.9. PROBLEM OF MEETING THE NEEDS OF
CHILDREN WHO DO NOT ENROLL IN SCHOOLS ON
TIME
1. Existing models used for the solution are ineffective
in solving the problems of the target group.
2.2.10. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR THE PROBLEM
OF MEETING THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO DO NOT
ENROLL IN SCHOOLS ON TIME
1. Existing models need to be re-evaluated and
different models need to be considered.
2. Different models to address the need to various risk
groups need to be identified and developed (seasonal,
migrant, agricultural labor).
• The school terms/semesters can be re-evaluated by
taking into account seasonal work/migration
• An option of intensive shorter-term education could
be considered.
• YİBOs can be used to take the children of migrant
workers in the places families go for work.
3. Providing clothing, food and stationary materials for
the students in need.
4. Getting support of Social Assistance and Solidarity
Fund and municipalities.
2.2.11. LANGUAGE PROBLEM
1. The languages spoken in some of the homes
within the region are not Turkish, and families
experienced difficulties in learning Turkish.
2. Children still do not speak Turkish when they
start school
3. Teachers cannot understand the languages
spoken in the in the region other than Turkish.
2.2.12. STRATEGY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE
LANGUAGE PROBLEM
1. Children need to be taught Turkish prior to starting
primary schools.
2. Turkish language education can be given to parents
whose native languages are not Turkish.
3. People who teach Turkish should be chosen from
experts who are trained in teaching second language.
4. Teaching Turkish to non-native speakers should be
part of early childhood education programs.
5. Teachers should learn the languages spoken in the
274
region such as Kurdish and Arabic.
2.2.13. NATIONAL AWARENESS ISSUE
1. Lack of awareness of the problem at the national
level.
2. Existing of nationwide prejudices for people form
various regions.
3. Lack of a national perspective on the issue.
2.2.14. STRATEGY PROPOSALS FOR NATIONAL
AWARENESS ISSUE
1. Efforts need to be made toward overcoming
interregional differences and prejudices held toward
people living in various regions of the country.
2. National projects need to be coordinated and state
policies need to be developed for cooperation and
coordination.
3. Campaigns need to be started for the people to
develop feelings of ownership for the problems and for
the flow country men and women.
4. All the institutions and agencies that are involved in
the problem need to work in solidarity.
5. National campaigns need to be launched that focus
on the issues of calculating and determining school
enrollment age and readiness for school.
2.2.15. ISSUES WITH MEDIA
1. Media, particularly local media, is not used at
sufficient levels or effectively.
2. Sometimes programs broadcasted in the media
support and encourage prejudices toward various
groups of people.
2.2.16. STRATEGY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ISSUES
WITH MEDIA
1. National and local media should be used more for
national awareness.
2. The communities affected by this problem should
be presented with free of biases and prejudices in the
media.
3. Media should be a used as a mechanism to combat
prejudices and biases within society.
5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
In line with findings of current research, various
issues and problems were discussed at the workshop.
The main issues and problems discussed can be
summarized as follows.
• Overall, socio-economical levels of the families living
in this region is low,
• Large families are common,
• Mothers in particular are uneducated,
• Mothers and children often do not know Turkish,
• Girls are at a higher disadvantage in cases of not
enrolling in school on time,
• Main sources of income for the families are unskilled
labor, seasonal work and seasonal migrant work,
• Parents usually are not aware of school enrollment
age,
• Families prefer to delay the enrollment of their
children in schools for a year for various reasons,
• Families have no information about article 15 of the
related regulations,
• Families are not aware of the assistance and support
state and some other organizations provide for the
families who have children attending primary school,
• Families do not seem to monitor the development
and health of their children,
• Primary schools face deficiencies in transporting
its students, number of students in classrooms, and
providing appropriate educational environments,
• There are limited early childhood education
opportunities for children,
• School administrators and teachers face
communication problems with parents and students,
particularly the ones who do not speak, or speak very
little Turkish,
• Teacher mobility is higher in this region, adversely
affecting screening/ identification and monitoring
activities,
• There is no sufficient and effective collaboration
between primary schools and faculties of education in
the region,
• National and local media are inadequate and
very limited in working to eliminate disparities and
prejudices among regions and increasing levels of
education,
• There is no established synergy among people,
local governments, schools, community leaders, and
nongovernmental organizations in the region.
In line with the issues and problems discussed at the
workshop, operational strategies have been developed
toward solutions. These solutions can be performed in
short and/or long-term.
Some of these strategies are:
• The state government, and the Ministries of National
Education, Health and Defense, universities, NGOs,
local governments and media organizations should
work in collaboration and prepare an emergency
developmental plan to improve life standards of the
people living in the region, to provide professional and
occupational training for fathers and to teach Turkish
to mothers.
• A protocol can be prepared and implemented to
start a partnership between health centers and school
administrators who carry on school health practices.
• Rehabilitation centers need to be improved and
their evaluation, inspection and guidance need to be
properly carried out.
training during these campaigns need to be provided
that show families when the number of children in a
family increase, the economical and burden families
face increase.
• There should be a greater emphasis placed on
teaching Turkish to people living in the region,
particularly mothers. Facilities of primary schools and
universities in the region should be activated and used.
• Working in a partnership with schools, mosques,
cafes (kahvehane) and the local gathering places
fathers often visit need to be used to training of
fathers for various skills. During the training of fathers
designed to help them develop various skills to use
toesponsible for teaching these issues to young men
serving in the military.
• The fact that legal age for starting school is 72
months needs to be clearly taught to parents by
teachers, school administrators, and national and local
media.
• Families need to be informed about their need to
275
• Rural studies need to be started in GRCs that
address the specific needs of people living in rural
areas. In order to have a better rural focus in GRCs,
their personnel need to be increased, and their
workloads need to be reduced.
find work, the fathers can also be educated about the
importance of schooling, early childhood education,
primary education and the importance of girls’
education.
• Ministry of National Education and the Ministry
of National Defense can work together to educate
young men at their military bases while they are doing
their military service about these pressing issues
(the importance of early childhood education, timely
enrollment of children in schools, girls’ education,
support state provides for the families in need who
enroll their children in schools etc.)
• Faculties of education within universities need to be
consulted to train the personnel who will be
• Birth control campaigns need to be maintained,
andcomplete the final enrollment of their children in
schools once their children are automatically, preregistered in schools through e-registration system.
• Schools should prepare and deliver invitation letters
to families informing that it is time for them to enroll
their children in school.
• Letters and flyers need to be prepared and delivered
to families that explain article.
• A new module needs to be added to e-school
system that allows for monitoring student progress
concerning their school enrollment and attendance.
• Children of seasonal migrant workers need to be
either placed in YİBOs or in schools near where their
families migrate to work.
• Educational models other than existing institutional
education need to be considered and possibly
implemented to provide the children of the region with
early childhood and primary education.
• Qualitative and quantitative aspects of early
childhood and primary education institutions need to
be evaluated and improved.
• Regional Boarding Schools (YİBOs) and schoolbussing systems need to be re-examined and
276
re-structured to address the needs and cultural
characteristics of the people living in the region.
• School districts in the region should organize
activities to introduce school system to people
especially in the areas where parents have low
educational levels.
• Teachers must be provided with pre-service and inservice training about how to work with disadvantaged
families and their children.
• Students in schools of education should have
opportunities for internship in villages.
• Collaboration between schools and the faculties
of education need to be established in order to use
courses such as Community Service to serve the needs
of the people and the schools in underdeveloped
regions.
APPENDIX-IV. SAMPLE CARD USED DURING STRUCTURED
INTERVIEWS FOR THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
CARD 3 (QUESTIONS 25-42)
1. IT WAS INFLUENTIAL AT ALL
2. IT WAS NOT INFLUENTIAL
3. IT WAS PARTIALLY INFLUENTIAL
4. IT WAS INFLUENTIAL
5. IT WAS VERY INFLUENTIAL
Tel:(212) 212 80 52
Faks: (212) 212 38 02
www.genar.com.tr
277

late enrollment in primary education: causes and

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

View Paper

Comparing 2011 General Election and 2014 Presidency

PDF of Table 12

Commonsense Aspects of Buying and Selling