Rural Education Component
Final Report
October, 1998
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
In 1996 Turkish Ministry of National Education asked UNICEF to manage the rural component of the Basic Education Pilot Project (BEPP) to lay the foundation of the Basic Education Program. BEPP drew upon unallocated funds under the National Education Development Project Agreement between Republic of Turkey and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Loan No: 3192-TU).
This project was based upon the on going basic education program that was jointly designed and implemented by the Ministry of National Education and UNICEF since 1990 to realise the vision of meeting the basic learning needs of all children, (especially young girls) and adults, under the name of Universalisation of (8 years) Primary Education Project (UPE). It aimed to raise the quality of primary education in terms of learning achievement. We assumed that if the basic learning needs (literacy, numeracy, problem solving and life skills) were met, and the children (especially girls) would remain at school longer and become key partners of sustainable development in their own community in the future. An assessment of learning achievement initially carried out in four selected provinces (Tekirdað, Kastamonu, Þanlýurfa, Adýyaman) show that in rural areas children did less well on “learning achievement tests” and fewer girls attended the school. Therefore the BEPP project focussed on rural areas and girls/women.
Another important issue addressed by the UPE Project was closure of the village schools. The Ministry of National Education, concerned with low quality education, had started to close the small schools (mostly multi-grade classrooms) and bus the children to more central and better-equipped schools. Boarding schools were and continue to be considered to be an appropriate response as well to ensure quality education in rural areas. Field observations during UPE showed that these strategies would be costly and often cause the girls to drop out even earlier than if remained in their villages, due to parental reluctance to send their girls out of sight. Therefore, both education projects addressed problems in quality of education in rural village schools by training teachers to create an active learning environment for children, by orienting inspectors to continuously support the teachers in the field, and by providing basic education materials. The hypothesis was that children in these schools would learn better and stay longer in the system.
After four years of field experience from 1991-1996, the UPE Project proved successful: Monitoring of UPE field activities showed that the teachers were more oriented, self reliant and self confident; the inspectors had improved their relationship with the teachers; children had become "active learners" and stayed longer at school. Most importantly, the risk of closing the village schools due to low quality was reduced.
The rural component of BEPP was designed to expand the UPE experience in Turkey. The Project activities from the original 74 village schools were expanded to another 276 village schools moving from 3000 students to 25,000 student beneficiaries. The newly selected villages were in nine different provinces, with only Þanlýurfa participating in both projects, although with different village schools.
While field activities largely remained the same between UPE and BEPP, the major change lay in the source of funds and resulting adjustments for accountability UPE had been catalysed by UNICEF’s program of co-operation with the Government of Turkey, whereas BEPP was funded by a World Bank loan to the same government. National politics regarding the duration of basic compulsory education cast and additional overlay on the new management issues.
Managing the rural component of the Basic Education Pilot Project has provided a challenging opportunity for UNICEF and the Ministry of National Education (MONE) to move beyond a small scale project and to anticipate the possible "benefits" and "pitfalls" for when the project would evolve into a nation wide action plan for basic education. This final report summarises the UNICEF perspective on the BEPP rural component experience.
Universal eight year primary education in Turkey was the ultimate goal of the Basic Education Pilot Project. The specific objectives of the Basic Education Pilot Project’s Rural Component were to field test alternative strategies for:
To realise these, objectives BEPP drew upon the following strategies:
BEPP achievements will be analysed in two sections. First, realisation of the work plan, objectives, tasks, constraints and lessons learnt of each activity will be analysed. Then the overall achievement of the project in terms reaching its stated objectives will be discussed.
A. The Workplan:
Each of the activities included in and excluded from the workplan, had a direct bearing on the achievement of the broad Project objectives. Naturally, each activity had its own objectives and targets as well. They will first be analysed as discrete components:
1. Seminar, orientation, follow-up and evaluation meetings:
A series of meetings for orientation, follow up and evaluation aimed to improve the knowledge and skills of the central and provincial project implementers regarding the objectives and scope of the project, while de facto monitoring implementation of the project activities. It provided a forum to discuss lessons learnt as well. By periodically bringing education officials together it was expected that:
Around 100 participants were expected to attend the first introduction and final evaluation meetings, and around 60 officials were to meet at least four times during project implementation.
Accomplishments: These meetings had a critical impact on the project's implementation. UNICEF pre-financed the first orientation meeting in 19-21 June 1996, because delays in signature of the project document put the 1996-97 academic year at risk for the entire project. Its timing prior to the school year was critical for persuading provincial officials and inspectors about the relevance of BEPP to their locales. The central and local implementers were kept abreast of the improvements, changes, and constraints in field implementation. They also learned how to collaborate with each other to find solutions to the identified problems. The monitoring meetings provided a forum for field implementers and inspectors from different provinces to exchange knowledge, insight and experience that they gained during the implementation. As the monitoring meetings delegated the decision and implementation responsibilities to the provincial education officials, ownership of the project, solidarity among the officials and constructive "competition" were observed and openly staged. It was promising and rewarding for the Central Project Implementation Team to witness the constructive recommendations (without judging) being made on each other's presentations, trying out positive examples in their own province, and above all, defending the usefulness of particular activities (to which they had once objected) to the General Directorate.
The Final Evaluation Meeting enjoyed a high level participation by MONE, including the Minister, university members, World Bank staff, and inspectors from the project. The meeting provided a forum for discussing what could be done in meeting basic learning needs of the children in rural areas. It raised awareness among the decision makers, technical experts and academics about the learning needs of the children in rural areas, as well as conditions that bar children, families and even the teachers from accessing available learning opportunities.
Constraints: The major constraint for this activity was the high turnover of government officials in the selected provinces. Initial plans to invite the governors and the education directors of the project provinces to only the introductory meeting needed to be revised during project implementation due to staffing changes. The need to continually brief newly assigned senior provincial officials led to their inclusion in the follow-up and evaluation meetings as well.
Another important constraint was the fact that the decisions made at these meetings sometimes were not implemented in time due to management failures causing delay in other activities.
Cost Analysis: Total budget of this activity was US $ 102,700 in the original Agreement, but estimated actual expenditure is around US $ 70,000. The difference is mainly due to the selection of venue for the meetings. The meetings were held at the teachers’ guesthouses or at hotels, with competitive quotations. The average cost per person per meeting is US $ 175, ranging between US $ 150-350, depending upon the mode of transport and the meeting venue. The orientation and follow up meetings cost much less then anticipated, as they took place outside of Ankara and not all the participants used air transport.
2. Reproduction and Delivery of Educational Materials and Procurement of Basic Educational Materials:
The major aim of this activity was to create motivating and enriching learning opportunities in rural multi-grade classrooms. Provision of teachers guides, student activity books, various educational materials for schools and stationery for students were vital (though insufficient in and of itself) to generating interest in basic education,
Accomplishments:
The teachers guide books and student activity books had originally been developed in collaboration with academics, inspectors and teachers, and field-tested during the MONE-UNICEF Universalisation of (8-year) Primary Education project. These were reproduced and distributed to all 276 Basic Education Pilot Project schools. This activity has provided additional field testing opportunities and proof of the utility and relevance of these books.
Evaluation studies, conducted by the BEPP Team, revealed that the teachers and inspectors found the guidebooks useful. Newly appointed teachers in rural multi-grade classrooms seemed to have especially benefited from the books. For further improvement of the teachers’ guides and student activity books, comments from the Board of Education as well as from the teachers and inspectors were solicited. They recommended better binding, and providing the books on time. Content, relevance and usefulness of the books were well recognised by all parties. The possibilities of making use of these materials in the future is discussed under the section titled "Unfinished Tasks".
Supplementary educational materials have been distributed to the schools based on the list prepared by the central Project Implementation Team in consultation with the teachers and inspectors in the field. In a similar manner, the schools received stationery such as notebooks, pencils, crayons etc. Teachers and inspectors reported that such materials generated more interest in schools among the children and their parents. Teachers also noted that student absenteeism due to lack of school materials noticeably dropped. It was apparent during the field observations that the materials made a positive impact on creating a stimulating learning environment in the schools.
Provision of materials made a positive influence also on the parents’ attitudes toward school and education. In some cases, this led the communities to provide additional material and financial support to the schools.
Constraints: The major constraint to the effectiveness of this activity was that the materials did not arrive at project schools at the beginning of the school year in1996. This was primarily caused by lack of synchronising the school year and the project calendar. (Negotiations between the Government, World Bank task managers, UNICEF New York and UNICEF Ankara had been protracted over more than two years regarding the nature of collaboration and details in the Agreement that was finally signed on 30 September 1996. Funds were actually made available for disbursement by UNICEF in November 1996.) Late arrival of the materials made teachers and inspectors reluctant to use them in classrooms.
The second important constraint was insufficient knowledge of UNICEF rules and regulations for the bidding and procurement processes. The need to obtain local procurement authorisation from UNICEF Supply Division in Copenhagen for each order had not been adequately anticipated in the workplan. Each material needed to be justified in terms of price and quality against the standards of the Copenhagen warehouse. This was a time consuming task that involved more UNICEF staff time than planned. It also created conflict between UNICEF and the Ministry.
Extension of the Project for second year (1997-98) was an important opportunity to make full use of the teachers’ guides, student activity books, and educational materials. However, both the teachers’ guides and the activity books had been prepared for use in combination with the school textbooks, provided by the Ministry. Unfortunately, the Ministry abruptly stopped providing the core textbooks. This lack of books became an issue repeatedly raised during the monitoring meetings and field trips. By re-allocating unspent budget lines, the textbooks were purchased from BEPP project funds. However the process of preparing the lists, obtaining Ministerial approval, going through the bidding procedures and receiving the local procurement authorisation from UNICEF Copenhagen, all resulted in delivery of the books to the project provinces almost at the end of the 1997-98 school year and project period, causing further frictions with the Ministry.
Cost analysis: The budget allocated for this group of activity was US $ 486,400. Actual expenditure is estimated to be around US $ 639,000. Over-expenditure was caused by the purchase of additional textbooks for the children as discussed above. In order to meet the deficit, a budget reallocation was realised, with the approval of the Ministry, and obtaining "no objection" from the Bank. The average cost of providing a more or less complete set of educational materials for schools, guide books for teachers, activity books for as well as stationery for students is around US $ 2,300 per school and US $ 25 per student.
3. In-service Training for Rural Education:
One of the major strategies of BEPP was to promote active learning and teaching methodologies in the classroom, enabling children to both enjoy learning and relate the new knowledge and skills to their immediate environment. In-service training activities enabled inspectors and teachers to better understand the philosophy and basic principles of active learning. Whereas the current practice includes a didactic (lecture) approach to these subjects, the BEPP in-service training used simulation and role-play to help trainees experience the process.
In-service training for inspectors covered the topics contained in teachers training. Skills to organise in-service training seminars for teachers and to involve the community in educational issues were also taught. In-service training for teachers were conducted through two separate but complementary activities: in-service teachers training and continuous teacher education and development. The in-service training provided the trainees with the basic skills to apply "learner-centred", interactive and participatory methods as opposed to rote learning. Continuous teacher education and development activities created opportunities to discuss the problems and their possible solutions with peers, supervisors and project managers throughout the school year.
Within this framework the expected outcomes of this activity were;
Accomplishments: The in-service training program was originally planned to take place only once, but the timing of the first program (the reasons of which are explained below as the major constraint in this activity) made it necessary to organise a second training for the newly assigned teachers.
The training reached its targets: evaluations based on pre- and post-tests revealed that learning achievement was high. The inspectors managed to plan and conduct continuous teacher education and development activities to meet the specific learning needs of the teachers in their own provinces. Their efforts to utilise active learning/teaching methods led to a positive change in relations between teachers and inspectors.
Although they differed from one province to another in number of training, trainees, days of training, all the provinces reported that the monthly training seminars were useful in the following ways;
As reported by the teachers and inspectors, the seminars, though often coinciding with their pay-days and monthly shopping in town, helped the teachers to continue learning. Most teachers admitted that after they met their colleagues working in nearby schools, they started visiting each other and sharing ideas.
The activity was originally planned for 400 teachers and 40 inspectors, around 600 teachers and 60 inspectors actually attended the in-service training seminars. Although it is hard to provide an exact number, the number of people involved in the continuous teacher education and development program is even higher: a) inspectors who had not participated in the in-service training seminars took part in the activities at the provincial level, either as trainers or as observers; b) the newly assigned teachers who could not attend the in-service training seminars participated in the continuous teacher education and development activities at the provincial/district level; c) in some provinces, teachers working in non-project schools also reportedly benefited from these activities.
Constraints: Major constraint with the teachers’ training seminar was the timing: Organising the seminar immediately before the school year began on September would yield better results than holding it during the winter vacation. Second major constraint was the high turnover among the teachers.
For continuous teacher training the major constraint was lack of readily available funds at the disposal of PPITs. Lack of funds caused: a) delays in reimbursing teachers for their transport to and from the village/district, b) reluctance on the part of some PPITs to initiate the activity.
Cost Analysis: The planned budget for this group of activity was US $ 470,000. Actual expenditure is estimated to be around US $ 305,000. Based on the assumption that the number of direct beneficiaries was minimum 600 teachers and 60 inspectors, the overall cost per person for the in-service training program is around US $ 460. However, it would be more appropriate to analyse the costs of this activity separately by sub-activities:
The School Funds posed new and challenging tasks for BEPP and UNICEF. The activity aimed to integrate school into the community to ensure effective utilisation of all available resources. The overall objectives of the activity were:
Within this framework, the major tasks of the activity as designed by the PPITs during the first introductory seminar in June 1996 were;
From the start, each VSC was informed that their budget depended on the number of students in the school. For each "enrolled" student, the VSC was entitled to budget up to US $ 100. Based on the logic that higher the number of students enrolled the larger the school budget would be.
Because the nature of the activity required "hands on" monitoring, this activity was planned to be implemented in only 30 villages of six provinces, rather than in 276 schools of 9 provinces. Further, in 15 village schools of the three provinces (Muþ, Van and Þanlýurfa), the village schools were to be renovated under another project component not managed by UNICEF. In each province there was a central village school with 8 single classes, and four village schools with multi-grade classes. Thus, the intention was that the central village schools were to provide room for the students of grade 6-7-and 8. Further, the central schools were expected to be resource centres for the other four village schools.
The Project had the largest lump sum in this activity line, excluding the school renovations. It was originally estimated that around 3,500 students would be served in these schools for two years. So the total number children to be involved in this activity were 7000 and the budget was US $ 700,000. Only after signature of the BEPP agreement between UNICEF and MONE, we learned that US $ 140.000 of these funds was to come from the Government, according to clauses in the over-arching agreement of the National Education Development Project. This created considerable confusion in both accounting and reporting terms, not to mention extra tension between MONE and UNICEF, when the funds were requested.
Accomplishments: This activity provided an opportunity for UNICEF, and MONE to actually experiment with different intervention strategies for community participation in education.
Although, a new activity for both UNICEF Turkey and MONE, school funds activities were predicated on successful World Bank experiences in other countries. The centralised administrative structure of Government ran contradictory to "community based activities" in the way it w as conceptualised by the project. Yet outmost efforts were made by all parties to complete the tasks in the following way:
Cost Analysis: This is one of the under-spent activities. The Original Agreement allocated US $ 700,000 and the Addendum reduced this sum to US $ 560,000, based on the assumption that the Money would be used to 5600 students and to clear away the need for the government’s financial input. As the number of students covered by the school funds were actually 3583, the funds needed for this activity was US $ 358,300 based on US $ 100 per student enrolled. Based on an exchange of official correspondence, some of these unused funds were again reallocated to procure educational materials. Nevertheless the implementation level of the activity is low due to several reasons:
The activity used less than half the allocated amount, with the average expenditure per student covered in the program is around US $ 40. However, it is important to note that in some provinces, especially in Erzurum and Sivas, the process generated considerable local funds that exceed the amount spent under the BEPP budget several times.
Constraints: As repeatedly stated in progress reports, the School Funds activity was a new concept, which could be interpreted in many different ways. Therefore, setting the common ground between MONE, UNICEF, World Bank was the first challenging task. Further however, working with the local people, involving the village hierarchy, teachers and the parents (only the fathers at the beginning) was even a bigger challenge. Women were the most difficult group to activate within the VSCs. Thus, separate "women groups" supporting their children’s schooling were proposed to be established. There were no "social mobilisation" mechanisms, such as mothers training program, volunteers training, better parenting initiative built in the program. By the time the VSCs, started to make efforts to facilitate the involvement of all segments of the community in educational activities, or catalyse community participation, the project was drawing to a close.
Constraints were perhaps imposed upon preparation of the work plans, due to time constraints, and close guidance by the Central Project Implementation team. This led to a situation where actual needs/priorities and the available sources of individual communities were not sufficiently reflected. This caused serious constraints in the following ways:
Another constraint was the difficulty faced in setting up the criteria for monitoring and evaluation of the School Funds program. To raise school enrollment, retention and learning achievement, School Funds were to help make the school an integral part of the community. In other words, ensuring that the school is protected supported and used by the community well. Therefore, criteria for assessing small-scale activities within this project component needed to be set up. The following set of criteria, drafted by Nurper Ülküer was used in an attempt to assess the process. This set of criteria, though not fully used, helped the central and provincial project implementation teams to understand "what to expect from the process":
An important opportunity for involving the community in planning could have been the school renovations. Unfortunately, due to limited communication between UNICEF and the Consultant Firm that undertook the renovations, the VSCs could not become part of the process. This mistake hindered the process of strengthening community participation which was "slowly" taking off, and made the community distrust the officials once more: "what was said did not match what was done".
The nature of the School Funds program was hypothetically appropriate within BEPP, but given the centralised nature of education and administrative systems in Turkey, patriarchal attitudes right from the central ministry to the heads of the family, "community participation" in education remains a real challenge for Turkey.
School Promotion Campaign was another field of activity where UNICEF could not build upon past experience. Based on the assumption that quality improvement and the transition to eight years of basic education would be boosted through community participation and support, promotional activities were originally planned to: a) raise public awareness about the value of increasing the basic education cycle from five to eight years; b) strengthen the co-operation between schools, parents and communities.
Within this framework, the activity was expected to produce:
Accomplishments: The activity started with the preparation of a "concept paper" compiling the information obtained from the interviews with parents and community including women and young girls, discussions with teachers, inspectors and education directors. The "concept paper" gave a brief account of attitudes and behaviours toward education, factors impeding and supporting education, possible measures to promote education and detailed the basic messages to be conveyed within the framework of the school promotion campaign. The "concept paper" identified the target audience as community, teachers, students, decision-makers and listed the possible advocacy activities and materials.
The following audio-visual materials were produced, distributed and utilised under BEPP:
The documentation of activities as part of the material production task, became an unanticipated motivation for the teachers, students and community members as well as the PPIT members and senior provincial staff. They all felt that their work was valued and that they were given recognition. The interviews in turn may act as a "documented" promise on their part. In the future, such activities should be planned to include these aspects and can be used as a valuable tool. Having the parents/community vocalise the ultimate goal of education all engages them to act accordingly. Finally, appraising their efforts by visiting them, inviting them to meetings and recording their village and their school and their verbal commitment on VCR provides a very good motivation for the continuation of the efforts.
Constraints: Traditional forms of message delivery such as theatre groups visiting the community, or encouraging groups and individuals in the community to add their own versions to these prototypes met with central government resistance.
Due to technical problems faced by the production firm leading to further delays, the animation film, previously planned, had to be cancelled at the last point of the project.
Another constraint that could not be foreseen is the amount of time and effort demanded from the project staff to produce the aforementioned products. Although the technical task was contracted out, the whole process required close and continuous monitoring by UNICEF. This use of staff time had been seriously underestimated.
Due to time constraints, the impact of materials produced could not be assessed. The impact assessment of these materials should be considered as a follow up.
Cost Analysis: The activity has utilised most of the sources allocated for this purpose. The difference is due to the fact that the task is offered to the lowest bidder. However, it would be difficult to analyse the cost efficiency of the activity without an impact assessment of the materials produced. In the meantime, the materials are only a part of the "school promotion campaign" since BEPP as a whole was designed to increase quality in primary education and thus ensure community support and involvement in educational issues. Again it would be wrong to calculate a unit cost for such a large target audience, because the material produced will have a larger target population than the BEPP.
This activity was designed to enable the ministry staff to monitor progress and learn from the project activities.
In-country field trips of UNICEF and the ministry staff served the purpose of monitoring Continuous Teacher Education Activities and School Fund programs. Through this, we could jointly observe field implementation by visiting BEPP schools and talking to inspectors, teachers, aldermen, imams, midwives, mothers, fathers and the children themselves. Although time-consuming, these trips had multiple benefits which are not easy to calculate in terms of costs: a) This was the only way for the central team and UNICEF to observe and monitor field implementation, make adjustments as necessary and convey information about the project implementation in other provinces. b) The provincial teams would review project implementation together with the visitors during these visits. c) These visits were a source of motivation for teachers and students as well as the villagers, because of the attention accorded to them from Ankara central policy makers. Throughout the Project all provinces were visited at least once. These missions included Government officials, World Bank and UNICEF staff and consultants. Provinces needing further support and guidance were visited several times, until problematic issues were clarified.
The field trips also provided the Central Project Implementation Team, and the World Bank with insight on social, cultural economic similarities as well as differences between and within the project provinces. The attitudes toward education and schooling, including the schooling of the girl child and mothers involvement as partners in education, tend to vary from province to province, and even from village to village.
Constraints: This activity was designed for Government officials who are and would be involved in basic education. However the narrow range of people in the central project implementation team (CPIT) limited effective use of this chance for officials and policy makers to observe the local conditions and revise the policies. With the introduction of the law on eight-year compulsory primary education, these funds could have been used to introduce the central MONE personnel to the conditions in the project provinces. However, the CPIT workload, and lack of co-ordination within MONE deprived the implementers of the Education Reform of the opportunity to obtain first hand field-based information on the variety of issues confronting Turkey outside the capital.
Cost analysis: Due to reasons explained above, only around 7 % of the allocated amount could be spent in this budget line. The in-country field trips by UNICEF staff and consultants were covered by their own budget and thus are not reflected under this activity. Therefore a cost or an impact analysis of this activity would hardly yield any information that would shed light for future efforts.
B. Achievements of the Project Objectives:
The Basic Education Pilot Project had three major objectives. Given the time constraint of two years, it would not be realistic to claim that the project has achieved them all. However, both the qualitative assessments (based on field observations) and the quantitative assessment (based on specific surveys, pre-, post tests of in-service training) indicate that considerable improvement in the quality of "learning" took place in project schools. Inspectors for these schools tended to be more involved and knowledgeable about specific problems in the project schools, and teachers were proud of both their own accomplishments and those of their students as seen in some of the educational tools that they had made by themselves. These achievements have been documented by the project consultants whose reports were duly shared with the government as attachments to the relevant Progress Reports. This is also supported by the reporting of the State Institute of Statistics who undertook the impact evaluation of the rural component. However, the impact on learning achievement of the children is yet to be known. Pre- and posts tests on learning achievement of the children in project villages were carried out by the same institute as an "external evaluator". The results will be shared with MONE by November 1998, complementing this evaluation report.
Overall, however, the Project drew attention to the major schooling issues in rural areas as distinct from problems in urban schools that usually garner more attention. In this context, the Basic Education Pilot Project could be considered an achievement by itself.
BEPP has also enabled two UN Agencies to honour their commitment made at the World Conference on Education for All in 1990. UNICEF and the World Bank, in collaboration with the Government of Turkey, joined their efforts to reach out to the children in areas where, due to many reasons, they had no access to education opportunities.
The project advocated for meeting the basic learning needs of all (children, youth and adults) in rural areas. In spite of all the delays, confrontations, and criticisms BEPP has explicitly underlined the three important issues:
Basic Education Pilot Project's Rural Component has drawn attention to these important issues, proving that reaching out children in remote areas IS POSSIBLE but requires specific strategies and policies tailored to the learning needs of the children concerned.
In the framework of its design, management structure, and its limited time table, the Rural Basic Education Pilot Project had to leave some of the tasks unfinished. For future reference these will be listed and the major reasons will be discussed here.
The BEPP attempted to make use of the "Central School" concept within the framework of School Funds Program. However, the central schools in the BEPP School Funds Program were not necessarily "the" central school in terms of capacity, accessibility or social acceptability. Nevertheless, the experience and some positive models have provided an insight on the potential creation of school clusters. The central school may be equipped to serve as: a) a continuous education and development centre both for the teachers, students and for the community as a whole; b) a centre of attraction which would facilitate and increase friendly interaction among the neighbouring villages; c) a resource centre for finding solutions to the immediate problems of the neighbouring communities.
The possibility of rendering "central schools" really central remains a challenge that may prove to be very fruitful in efforts to increase the overall quality of educational services, both in the rural areas and in the urban slums of Turkey.
The Basic Education Pilot Project has provided an excellent learning experience for all parties involved. It was a unique opportunity for UNICEF and the World Bank to work together towards achieving the goals of Education for All. The Government of Turkey became the donor of its own project, by working with UNICEF and financing it from a World Bank loan. The decentralised nature of the project allowed provincial government officials, as well as small village communities to actively participate in field implementation. The project is setting examples for similar projects around the world. Bangladesh and Yemen have already initiated similar projects in Basic Education. Therefore, it is important to summarise how the project could be designed for better and more effective application of its strategies.
Design of the project:
Although the project is called "basic education" the focus was mainly on primary school education. Other dimensions of basic education, such as early childhood education, life skills training, adult vocational education, need to be considered as an integral part of the basic education project. Such integration would also facilitate the development of community participation in education.
The Project had three major components that were complementary to each other. However, the linkages between these components, at the central and local levels could have been much stronger. The Project Management and Monitoring Unit’s role and responsibilities should also be clarified. The project was administered by the General Directorate of Primary Education that is a major implementation unit of the Ministry. This provided the project with first hand implementation opportunity. Working with one general director who had substantial experience at all levels of the education process and a sound understanding of the conditions prevailing at the field level, throughout UNICEF’s involvement in Basic Education in Turkey was a critical factor for the success and continuity of UPE and BEPP. (High staff turnover requires that much time and energy be spent to explain goals, objectives and priorities in any project.) At the same time, management under this directorate then excluded the involvement of directorates for pre-school and vocational education.
Time schedule and the work plan of the project should be parallel with the school calendar: In principle, the BEPP’s time schedule was in line with the school calendar. The introducing seminar was planned for June 1996, so that the provinces would complete their preparations, and appoint their inspectors and teachers to the project provinces. Inspectors and teachers training seminars were scheduled in late August and early September. The books and educational materials were to be distributed to the provinces during the summer months by September 1996. Due to delays in signing the Agreement between UNICEF and the Ministry, the project missed a valuable school year. It is therefore important to sketch more realistic timetable for the project.
Educational materials are the basic tools for creating a rich learning environment in schools, but they too must be in place before the school year starts. Teachers’ guides seemed to be the basic resource books for the teachers who are newly appointed, in-experienced and isolated in a small village. Provision of basic stationery, such as notebooks, pencils, crayons and drawing books help encourage children's regular school attendance, while reducing the direct cost of schooling on families. Provision of basic school materials, books, guides seem to be a strong "promotion for schooling and education" .
In-service Training Seminars:
It has been observed throughout the project that continuous and complementary nature of the training seminars provides chances for self-reflection and horizontal exchange among teachers and inspectors. Teacher-to-teacher approaches and collegial exchange help to break the traditional isolation of teaching in rural schools. One or two-day monthly workshops, planned according to the specific needs of the provinces, allowed the inspectors as well as teachers to make necessary adjustments in their work plans. Although the meetings are organised by the Provinces, close monitoring of the activity would help to improve the seminar arrangements in terms of content, attitudes, and use of materials.
Continuous Teacher Education and Development Centres in the Provinces:
Continuous learning and development is a concept that gains importance in a rapidly changing world. Given the number of in-service training activities held within a year in a given province, the possibility of establishing continuous education and development centres at the provincial level should be considered. This could create substantial economies and provide the teachers with the opportunity to continue their education at their own convenience.
Community Participation:
The project’s experience in involving the community in basic education, provides the major learnt lesson for those who are/will be involved in such processes. It is building and sustaining the mutual TRUST among the stakeholders. The process needed to explore existing mechanism for such participation. Legally recognised mechanisms such as Parent Teachers Associations, or Associations for School Protection would be further explored for establishing more sustainable mechanisms in the community.
Field monitoring and follow up activities seem to be one of the major conditions for success. In any similar project, this needs to be given special attention. This project has made good use of this mechanism for providing continuous flow of information and outmost participation of the local officials and people.
UNICEF’s institutional experience:
UNICEF, by being invited to manage the Rural Component of the Basic Education Pilot Project, entered into an unconventional relationship with the Government of Turkey who was now financing a project and assuming more ownership of something initiated by UNICEF. The ensuing evolution in government attitude took place more rapidly than UNICEF was prepared for and affected the field implementation of the BEPP. The government, as the financial donor of the project became very closely involved in the bidding processes, program support criterion, and selection of the consultants, which were to be carried out according to the international rules and regulations of UNICEF, as stated in the agreement.
Project implementation was overseen by the UNICEF Representative and Project Officer whose first accountability remained with UNICEF, and not with the Project finances. This implies that UNICEF could also claim "independent" input in kind. They could also make more objective decisions and recommendations during the critical moments of the project, as job security did not depend on the project’s success or failure.
Program support for UNICEF to manage the project underestimated the workload imposed on UNICEF staff members other than BEPP Team composed of one secretary, and a project assistant. Social Research Officer was initially expected to allocate 10% of her time, but actually spent over 75% of her time on BEPP. Three consultants were authorised by the Government to be hired for specific purposes and had limited contribution to the "day to day" management of the Project. Assessment of the workload and composition of the management team is another important condition for the success.
BEPP implementation coincided with the enactment of the law on eight-year compulsory primary education, which created a great political controversy throughout the country and led to a change in the Government. The new law and the government policies that accompanied it (abolishing multi-grade classrooms thus multi-grade classroom teaching; provision of primary education services through boarding schools or bussing the village children to central schools) though not contradictory with BEPP objectives, tended to shift the national priorities. The importance of the project achievements were thus undermined and almost rendered them unnecessary. The heavy workload undertaken by both MONE and UNICEF, and the political tension over eight year compulsory education deprived both parties of the time and energy to establish a favourable environment to exchange information.
A cost analysis of the full Basic Education Pilot Project, including expenditure of the other components as well as of the government input, such as teachers salaries, and running cost of the schools and inspectors would have provided a better idea of the project’s effectiveness. However, such study was not planned nor was budgeted.
Overall analysis could nevertheless be made by dividing the estimated total expenditure by the (estimated) number of beneficiaries. Total number of beneficiaries of the BEPP can be estimated around 163,700 people -40 education officials, 60 inspectors, 600 teachers, and 25,000 students. Estimated total expenditure for BEPP (Attachment 1) is US $ 1,726,026. The average cost/person in the education system would thus be around US $ 67. Given that most of the expenditure is for providing educational materials and training to inspectors and teachers remain in the system for many years to educate children, the overall cost would be even lower if amortised over time. Whatever time frame is used, it is clear that good quality education can be provided cost-effectively even in remote areas of rural Turkey.
Universalisation of basic education requires more than passing laws, building schools and providing teachers. Field reality shows that national policy must enable the provincial education authorities to re-consider how all parents can be persuaded to value and invest in education for their boys as well as their girls. Supplies cannot make a sustainable difference in the quality of Turkey’s education, unless inspectors and teachers have the commitment and the tools to guide and motivate educational activities.
For education officials to ensure that all children benefit from available educational opportunities, and assure good quality universal basic education, they require genuine understanding of the cultural and social characteristics of communities and the latter’s expectations from education services. Even in urban gecekondu settlements where the school is within easy walking distance, children do not go to school or drop out early, because of high opportunity costs to their families. "Free" education in state schools still incurs expenses for school uniforms, books and "voluntary" contributions that affect the low-income family. Girls are more affected than boys are, as they are also expected to manage household chores and look after siblings. Girls not older than 15 also work as domestic labour even before completing their basic education. The growing number of street children in metropolitan areas such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Ýzmir is indicative of the growing poverty that prevents children from continuing their education in order to supplement family income. Enabling these children to benefit from available and innovative educational opportunities is a growing challenge for the Turkish education authorities.
In rural communities, education has not been traditionally valued as a long-term investment, but need "quick and functional return". Thus parents send their daughters to "carpet weaving courses" and their sons to shepherding to earn money, but not to school which requires an investment in uniforms and books. Ethnic and cultural practices also discredit girls’ education and favour socially accepted early marriages. Low school enrolment of girls is also exacerbated by the dearth of "educated/professional female role models", and the economic dependence on agriculture that counts upon the labour of children in the fields.
In such rural and urban situations, school-age children might NOT benefit from available educational opportunities without targeted encouragement and support. "Positive discrimination" is needed so that the children at risk of dropping out of the education system are followed and guided more closely by the inspectors, school principals and teachers. The latter naturally require appropriate training to approach these children and their families as learned from experience gained by two field oriented projects of Universalisation of Primary Education (UPE) and Basic Education Pilot Project (BEPP), where UNICEF proudly played a catalytic role and introduced international "know how" to Turkey’s education system.
It is now hoped and expected that Turkey’s Basic Education Program will take into account the learned lessons to work with teachers, inspectors and local education administrators to stimulate active interaction and collaboration between school and communities. These activities will help ensure the success of the overall Basic Education Program objectives, as all the invested supplies and buildings would be utilised to the fullest extent.