Council of State= legislative + executive + judiciary
by
BEKİR S. GÜR*

The most important characteristic of the modern state is, from the perspective of sociology of education, its ability to introduce equal educational opportunities to all social strata, making education accessible by all. Traditionally, Turkey had an egalitarian education system that did not deny higher education to anyone depending on his/her social class or the type of the high school they graduated from. But in 1999 the Higher Education Board (YÖK) introduced a system of using different coefficients and weighted “secondary education success points” (AOBP), and put an end to the egalitarian structure of education in Turkey. As the results of this decision became apparent over the next few years, even some of those who defended this decision admitted that the coefficient system must be abolished.

The Council of State’s 2009 decision indicates a reverse direction in all aspects from YÖK’s 1999 coefficient decision. YÖK at the time did not hide the fact that it actually intended to block certain high schools. Today we are in 2009, some 10 years after that decision. During that time, dozens of scientific reports have demonstrated the destruction caused by the coefficient system, and there are even some international reports about this matter. The Council of State’s argument that there cannot be a causal relationship between its coefficient system and the decline in demand for vocational high schools is clear proof that it is completely and voluntarily blind to all the statistics and qualitative data that accumulated during the last 10 years.

‘Orientation’ a la 1909

It is an anachronism that in order to defend its decision, the Council of State refers to the “orientation” principle of the National Education Law of 1973. For the Council of State, the students’ choosing a high school type at the age of 13 or 14 can be regarded as a legitimate justification for a strict guidance and separation system, which is acceptable only to the positivist education psychology of 1909, which would treat children as nothing but objects. At the very early stages of the development of psychology as a scientific branch, some psychologists argued, based on some tests about success in natural sciences, that children’s “probable destinations” should be determined and they should be trained (oriented) accordingly. Before too long, about 21 years later, the colleagues of these psychologists admitted that neither those tests nor those psychologists could be trusted.

The flaw of these psychologists was in basing their approaches on an incorrect philosophical assumption, or more specifically, metaphysics. According to this approach, a child can be considered an object which can be controlled and whose actions can be predicted. But a child is not an object; his/her interests may change over time. Therefore, to set an education destiny for an individual according to his/her performance in childhood and never to allow him/her any form of compensation is untenable from a pedagogical perspective. The interviews with people who attend and graduate from vocational high schools make it very clear that these students do not attend vocational high school just to learn a profession, but also to prepare for higher education. Under current legislation, the definition of vocational high schools is suitable for this. The Council of State’s attempts to treat the perspectives of these students and their parents as wrong with references to the orientation principle of the education system and to create a predestined course of education based on their “possible destinations” deserve to be treated as an outdated example of the positivist approach. This approach treats the child as an object and is based on a wrong metaphysics, and therefore, believes that it is entitled to guide the child and set a predestination for him/her.

It would be unfair to expect the Council of State to have profound information about the philosophical aspects of education, which requires specialization. But, how can they issue final decisions without consulting experts, even for show? Leaving aside the philosophical aspects of the matter at hand, the council should have some technical knowledge about its decision, shouldn’t it? The justification it provided for its decision makes it clear that the Council of State does not know the technical details of the differential coefficient system used in university entrance exams. The errors of facts in the decision -- for instance, it wrongly says that the coefficient in the new system is 0.5, while the correct figure is 0.15, and also it wrongly says that the coefficient was implemented at 0.3 and 0.5 starting in 1999, while in reality it was originally 0.2 and 0.5, and was later changed 0.3 and 0.8 -- are indications that it was made based on prejudice and without knowledge.

Creating castes

It is flawed to adopt a normal high school and vocational high school dichotomy. According to this system, a graduate of a science high school who was trained in science and math will be disadvantaged in the university entrance exam if s/he wishes to enroll in a sociology, international relations or law department due to the coefficient system. Similarly, a graduate of a social sciences high school will be disadvantaged when s/he wants to attend a medical faculty. Therefore, the system of differential coefficient application is not just a problem concerning vocational high schools, but is an issue of concern for all students. Since it concerns everyone, this matter must be radically solved. Education experts assert that it is wrong in terms of orientation to build solid walls within the education system. Today, many universities do not force their students to specify a department during admission but expect them to make up their minds about the department in the first or second class.

 The economy has started to distance itself from overspecialization but tends to emphasize the need for individuals who have received good general education and who are informed about many things, and many education systems around the world, particularly in the European Union, place greater emphasis on lifelong learning. But it is a basic contradiction for the judicial system in Turkey not to allow the porousness of the education system. This creates a structure which prevents people from developing and acquiring different skills, and eventually leads to an automatic system making poor students proletarian and unskilled.

Higher education opportunities ‘in the field’

Another issue is the opportunities available to vocational high schools. The Council of State argues that it is wrong to say that the decision blocks vocational high schools, since the graduates of these schools are basically oriented to higher education in their own fields as they are entitled to attend the vocational schools of universities (MYOs) without taking any exam. However, students from vocational high schools and their parents do not view this right to attend vocational schools without an exam as a meaningful opportunity. The respectability of the MYOs has been considerably damaged in the eyes of the general public. Anyone who graduates from a normal high school can attend an MYO without any disadvantage in the scoring system. So these schools do not provide any privilege to graduates of vocational high schools. Moreover, the damage caused to the higher education system and to the vocational high schools by this right to attend a MYO without an exam is well known. This is even acknowledged in a report titled “Turkey’s Higher Education Strategy,” prepared when Erdoğan Teziç was YÖK president. Furthermore, vocational high school graduates also seek to attend four-year undergraduate programs. However, the Council of State does not seem to hear these demands and tells these students: “You have very good opportunities. You have the right to attend an MYO without an exam.”

Education system entrusted to the Council of State

In its reasoned decision, the Council of State underlines that it has acted with a view to preserving the stability, harmony and integrity of the education system. These phrases remind one of the justifications voiced by the generals of the military coup of 1980, implying that the government and YÖK fail to preserve the harmony of the education system and therefore the judiciary has stepped in to fulfill this duty. The Council of State notes that the targets mentioned in the Eighth Five-Year Development Plan should not disrupt the integrity and harmony of the education system. But these targets do not contradict the basic principles of the education system, and this can be scientifically proven. Already, these plans are prepared with extensive participation and scientific support from specialized committees.

In sum, the Council of State oversteps its powers and authorities to assume and use those of the legislative and the executive -- without having to deal with the costs of being the executive -- and tries to preach what should be done or what should not be done in the education system. Moreover, they do this not for the sake of removing some inequalities, but to ensure that the existing ones are maintained. As the judiciary continues to defend the caste system in education, the meaning of the education system and the existing legal system is lost.