Interview with Mr. Batuhan Aydagül (Education Reform Initiative): “Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge in Turkey”

Interview with Mr. Batuhan Aydagül (Education Reform Initiative): “Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge in Turkey”

Evaluation Series – III

As Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey, we conducted an interview with Batuhan Aydagül, the Director of Education Reform Initiative (ERI), regarding utilization of scientific knowledge in decision-making in Turkey obtained from policy research and evaluation studies. Aydagül, who began his professional career in Finansbank, received his B.A. from Marmara University and M.A. in International Educational Administration and Policy Analysis in Stanford University. Aydagül, who took management classes at Harvard Extension School, also worked as an executive at The British International School, Istanbul. Between 2007 and 2008, he was invited as a coordinator to restructure the Ministry of Education in Liberia. Aydagül, who joined ERI in March 2003 as a research assistant, has been the coordinator of ERI since 2010. We hope that the third article of the evaluation series will introduce the concept of evidence-based policy makingin Turkey, from the perspective of another civil society organization.

Synopsis of the Interview

“ERI is an initiative that aims to improve the design and outcomes of educational policies in Turkey in accordance with the principle of ‘quality education for all’.”

“The AK Party’s ambient search for legitimacy – due to widespread doubt about them – resulted in a desire to reach out to civil society organizations and to initiate a dialogue with them substantially more than the previous parties in power did before.”

“During 2005-2011, I witnessed that the Ministry of National Education’s desire and capacity to data-driven policy-making has increased. At one point, we personally sat down with the General Director of Primary Education and discussed data. This was an important touchstone for me in terms of policy-making culture and public administration in Turkey.”

“Sooner or later, we are asked what our impact is. We need to acknowledge that this is not a “zero-sum game”; it does not have an absolute answer such as zero or one. First of all, the Ministry of National Education is not a monolithic institution. Second, what you consider as impact may not only be a change in legislation or regulation. It is indeed an impact if you can influence policymakers’ behaviour or attitudes, and/or create an awareness for the need to change and improve their way of thinking about public policies.”

“We are not sitting at opposite sides of the table; we indeed are on the same side. Our biggest difference from academia is first what we do after research and second what we do during research. Why do I say “research”? Because I think this is important to recognize that the Turkish bureaucracy does not like to be served cooked meal. Bureaucracy wants to sit on that table, in that kitchen, when the food is being cooked, and I think it is very natural to ask for it.”

“From the perspective of ERI, we are taking snapshots of education in Turkey based on evidence. We then provide an analysis of Turkey’s policy needs.”

“We should not look for a black and white picture, or should not even attempt to create one. Because it is quite normal that there are grey areas whereby politics and policy are intertwined. It is understandable in terms of their political agenda that the AK Party legislated 4+4+4. ERI’s objection was directed first towards the process of legislation (i.e., governance), and second towards its impact on education.”

“I think the 2011 general elections was the breaking point. Here I’m probably not alone, because many of us have at least observed the change in discourse in various AK Party policies especially social policies that are easily tainted by cultural ideology.”

“There are many issues to be discussed and resolved at least at a conceptual level amidst this confusion such as: What should be the content of our education? How shall we approach diversity? How shall we handle religion in education? What should be the language of instruction? How about the school autonomy? Will there be decentralization?”

“Given acute polarization in our society where political fights are commonplace, it is very crucial for our democracy that citizens obtain objective data about what is happening in our education. This is true for other sectors such as health, energy and environment, but for us especially in education. Yes, citizens must obtain information, and more preferably citizens must create their own opinions based on objective data.”

“It is crucial to bring diverse stakeholders around the same table to discuss what to teach and how to teach children in Turkey and to reach consensus on minimum expectations and interests, which should not be intervened by the ruling power.”

“Existing expertise and capacity at the Ministry of National Education should be as high as those of the Central Bank, Treasury and the Ministry of Development in Turkey. It is of utmost importance to deploy policymakers at all levels in Turkey who have the capacity to think analytically, to conceive the problems holistically within their own systems, to analyse the consequences and implications of actions, and utilize this knowledge.”

“The foible of public administration and public policymaking in Turkey is monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It is treated as if M&E does not exist. Thus, what we end up doing becomes either completely wrong or right.”

Full Text of the Interview

I would like to thank you on behalf of ResearchTurkey team for taking your time for this interview. To begin with, I want us to talk briefly about the purpose of ERI (Education Reform Initiative). What does ERI try to do and how does ERI do it?

ERI is an initiative that aims to improve the design and outcomes of educational policies in Turkey in accordance with the principle of ‘quality education for all’. To this end, we conduct research and produce knowledge to inform public policy makers’ decisions and also to assist citizens in forming an opinion about public policies. We also advocate for the target audience to have efficient and effective access to this information, hence collaborate with relevant organizations that would like to participate in disseminating this very information. Finally, we create educational opportunities in the field, classrooms, and schools to learn from teachers themselves, as well as create a platform for teachers to engage in critical thinking with one another, which is very crucial for them.

Thank you for this recap. I probably should ask this question at the end, but I want to begin with this to guide the rest of our conversation today. Could you describe the impact of ERI on policymaking ever since ERI was established or could you at least draw a road map?

Now, the window of policy in Turkish politics began to open up after the year 2000. This was particularly a parallel development in the region around us. In other words, Turkey’s democratic political culture has essentially more similarities with that of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and South-eastern Europe. On the one hand, public policy arena used to be monopolized by the government without having much dialogue with relevant stakeholders, and on the other hand, it was an open, promising field such that civil society organizations were expected to contribute to education by providing scholarships, building schools and establishing and operating educational institutions. However, the dialogue between the government and civil society did not take place bilaterally; neither did people demand it nor public administration provided [necessary] supplies. The factors that led to opening of this window surfaced at a conjuncture. The AK Party’s ambient search for legitimacy – due to widespread doubt about them – resulted in a desire to reach out to civil society organizations and to initiate a dialogue with them substantially more than the previous parties in power did before. Thanks to the official candidacy for the EU, and the following process of democratization in accordance with the EU Acquis, the importance of policy dialogue among governmental and nongovernmental actors has been highlighted, and these factors all together have created a significant platform for a policy dialogue in Turkey. Likewise, in the case of education, the situation was extremely negative at the time; for instance the fact that our curriculum and educational programs did not have features that would mirror or support the democratization process in Turkey in 21^st century facilitated this process [of policy dialogue].

At that point ERI was established, and the establishment of ERI was indeed a conjectural coincidence. Because the founders of ERI didn’t say that “Yes, there is such a change in Turkey and we have to catch up.” They instead concurred that; “there is a need for quality education due to demographic window of opportunity in Turkey.” Essentially, the amount of young population could create a significant advantage only if they received quality education. To this end, a dialogue between governmental and non-governmental actors was envisioned to catalyze, support and utilize this advantage, and the intention was to base this dialogue on evidence, hence ERI was established. ERI successfully took advantage of this window of opportunity presented by these recent developments in political culture. Because at that moment “The Girls’ Education Campaign” had begun; as well as the launching of new curriculum reform, plus bureaucrats who started working with former Minister of Education Mr. Çelik were more open to speaking with and listening to the civil society. Thanks to these developments, ERI had a chance to contribute and observe the situation from day one.

This momentum has accelerated, and in the meantime ERI has continued its dialogue with public administrators. Thanks to the work we have done during that period, ERI gained the confidence of bureaucracy. It is evidently not possible to talk to all political parties but within the AKP and especially at the ministerial level, the notion that ERI is “data-driven and objective rather than ideological” has been cultivated. With this opportunity at hand, it has become much easier for us continue such an established relationship. Yet it has always been a vital challenge to sustain this fine line. What is this fine line? It is to create a critical friendship with the government or the line ministries, to be able to appreciate when they do the right thing or provide recommendations in case of limitations and demonstrate how they can improve. The bottom line in either case is to use a constructive language and most importantly foreground everything on evidence.

During 2005-2011, I witnessed that the Ministry of National Education’s (MoNE) desire and capacity to data-driven policy-making has increased – although it declined in the aftermath of 2008-2009. At one point, we personally sat down with the General Director of Primary Education and discussed data. This was an important touchstone for me in terms of culture of policy-making culture and public administration in Turkey. Later we collaborated with MoNE and UNICEF to investigate the causes of problems that the Ministry deemed important. This collaboration dealt with a plethora of issues. On the one hand, the research pertained to vocational training and early childhood education; on the other hand, it dealt with more sensitive issues. For instance, we conducted the first research study on religion and education in Turkey in 2005. I think the resulting report still retains its significance, and it can still provide guidance as to how to structure religion in education in Turkey. Furthermore, we have had teacher trainings that we mostly have provided through the “Best Practice in Education” conference. We organize these not only in İstanbul, but also in different provinces in Turkey. When we go to those places and organize such activities, we have had a chance to interact with the teachers and most especially with MoNE. These interactions have helped us get to know one another. I think it is important to know whom you are working with and important to communicate and resonate with the public actors in order to work within public policy. To this end, both sides need to commit to make an investment.

Then, sooner or later, we are asked what our impact is. We need to acknowledge that this is not a “zero-sum game”; it does not have an absolute answer such as zero or one. First of all, the Ministry of National Education is not a monolithic institution. Second, what you consider impact may not only be a change in legislation or regulation. It is indeed an impact if you can influence policymakers’ behaviour or attitudes, and/or create awareness for the need to change and improve their way of thinking about public policies. Therefore, we need to define impact in a broader context. Otherwise, I think that it will be too unfair to think tanks and civil society organizations that deal with educational policies and programs. Because it is important to emphasize that none of these institutions have the capacity for legal enforcement or imposing sanctions. Recently someone said on TV – I think it was Saygın Öztürk – that ERI does not have the power to enforce but has a potential to benefit the ones who listen. Our biggest task is to provide data so that policymakers can utilize while making decisions. However, we do not enjoy the same comfort that academicians enjoy after publishing their articles; we indeed have the obligation to go two, three, four steps further to share the results, and even work with [decision-makers] when producing that information. So yes, it is a luxury for an institution like ours to say that “we published the article or it is there; those who wish can read it.”

When we set our mission, we determined our goal as to provide data for decision-makers and we wanted to do it effectively. Our biggest difference from academia is first what we do after research and second what we do during research. Why do I say “research”? Because I think this is important to recognize that the Turkish bureaucracy does not like to be served cooked meal. Bureaucracy wants to sit on that table, in that kitchen, when the food is being cooked, and I think it is very natural to ask for it. Here we need to lay some ground principles as much as possible when we approach the bureaucrats. What are these? One of them is to acknowledge that the ministers or senior bureaucrats carry the egg basket on their shoulders, so while the minister has the political responsibility, bureaucrats have the responsibility towards the political will. Second, from every angle, you can see that there is a strong bureaucratic culture in Turkey that has deep-seated reflexes. We need to be aware of them. Thirdly, I think some of these are important principles in terms of bureaucracy; we are not on different sides here. We are not sitting at opposite sides of the table; we indeed are on the same side. What is that side? To ERI, education means quality education for all or the educational interests of children. We can extend the list, but at this point, it is important to respect the will and capacity of our bureaucracy, to understand their circumstances and context, to empathize with them, and to continue to work with them as much as possible without taking sides.

This last point is pretty important. I wonder if you believe think tank organizations are polarized in Turkey as well just like there is polarization in many other areas. For instance, one of the most common examples is the research related to 4+4+4. There are many organizations that claim to have provided unbiased and objective research results as you also pointed out earlier. However, the policy that is just evaluated can have different outcomes or processes and this can create confusion among public. How do you explain these differences?

I observed this personally while I was doing my Master’s. Stanford University School of Education and Hoover Institute are at most 200 metres apart from each other, and one of the instructors working at the Stanford University School of Education was Martin Carnoy, and Eric Hanushek was at Hoover. To illustrate, I observed a difference in their approach to school vouchers. Both were collecting evidence. Both were developing an argument based on that evidence but one was in favour of the voucher system while the other was against it. To me, this does not mean that knowledge produced is scientifically flawed. After all, organizations just like people approach phenomena from the point of a set of principles. I cannot speak for other think tanks but for us, we call it as “quality education for all.” And we specifically emphasize three points of this quality. First is education to create active citizenry. [The agenda of] active citizenry includes, but is not limited to, human rights, respect for human rights, and the capability to protect and demand it, the capacity to embrace diversity, and I am not even mentioning labour force participation here. We have a more universal approach that incorporates human rights and children’s rights.

Apart from this, in my opinion, research methodology or the nature of evidence is a matter of discussion. When one comes across a research study with different results – and we may even know that the organization has a different worldview – I think the discussion of research findings and implications should be associated with that worldview as little as possible. Because our concern is – and I can only speak for ERI; I cannot speak for other think thanks and I also cannot judge what they do – from the perspective of ERI, we are taking snapshots of education in Turkey based on evidence. We then provide an analysis of Turkey’s policy needs. Instead of discussing evidence, when you start discussing ideologies – which is obviously legitimate and probably also critical – the risk of moving away from rationality that we seek in education is higher. Nevertheless, it does not mean that one is better than the other. After all, if policy is closely associated with politics, and politics is made out of ideologies, it is naïve and even fanciful to expect that policies will be purified from political ideas in such a laboratory environment. In recognition of this environment, it should be our effort to create a platform where evidence is discussed more frequently. Herein we should not look for a black and white picture, or should not even attempt to create one. Because it is quite normal that there are grey areas where politics and policy are intertwined. It is understandable in terms of their political agenda that the AK Party legislated 4+4+4. ERI’s objection was directed first towards the process of legislation (i.e., governance), and second towards its impact on education. I should also add that, although the public policy space has been opening up and expanding around the world within the last decade, think tanks organizations that do feed policymaking are not as important as prescribed by the policy culture of Anglo-Saxon countries. For example, all think tanks in the United States are ideologically associated with one another, even if they say they are not. They call themselves independent, but you know that Heritage and Hoover are conservative, while Brooking is more liberal.

When you are describing the impact of ERI – and we discussed what impact is and is not – you have indicated that as of 2000, the AK Party has become more open to evidence in their search for legitimacy.

Call it smart or being open to more rational debate.

Yes. Then you stated that the peak was reached during 2008 -2009 and thereafter the momentum began to decline slightly. Is this drop continuing or this was just a part of the process?

I think the 2011 general elections was the breaking point. Here I’m probably not alone, because many of us have at least observed the change in discourse in various AK Party policies especially social policies that are easily tainted by cultural ideology. This came up in theatres, in education, in medicine, in women rights or women related issues. After the 2011 general elections, we prepared reports for all deputies about their provinces, and had the opportunity to talk with many officials from the government party as well as the opposition parties. At that point we heard the following from the AK party deputies, or even from those at senior levels: “We were not so successful in education during the first eight years, and in the coming period, we will pay more attention and significance to education.” This was very crucial news for us, and also the fact that Ömer Dinçer became the Minister [of Education] was also great news because, if you think about it, Omer Dincer is very close to the Prime Minister and has already gained the Prime Minister’s trust, so the fact that such a powerful figure becomes the head of MoNE provides evidence for how significant the Ministry was for the government. We were really hopeful at the onset, given Dinçer’s expertise in governance and public administration, and also given the need for reforms in public administration at MoNE.

Nevertheless, we later witnessed that, although the AK Party desired to take concrete steps in education, they had little to do with educational priorities in Turkey – from our perspective. Conversely, these steps were fed by the AK party’s social and ideological agenda, and there were expectations and concerns in regards to increasing the role of religion in education. So after the year 2011, we have clearly observed this. Up until 2011, the AK Party was approaching education through the window of economic and social development. There is a great article written by Aytuğ Şaşmaz on this issue (see Şaşmaz, 2013). Yet after 2011, they started approaching education through a set of cultural and political values and principles. This eventually makes it difficult for bureaucrats to apply the principle of rationality.

It in fact should not make it that difficult but I will explain how that is the case. Politicians state that they intend to be responsive to their voter base in accordance with their political ideology. We can give various examples of this such as 4+4+4 and the issue of private tutoring institutions. Voters and citizens may indeed have expectations and demands. Nevertheless, [under these circumstances] when you present bureaucrats with a more empirical-based, rationality-based anti-thesis, they are inclined to reject it, because what politicians ask them to do is to handle the immediate educational needs or wants, which may not be supported by the best practices in the world or available research studies. Bureaucrats do not have the chance to say no; after all, they are obliged to do whatever politicians ask them to do. In this case, the window that provides bureaucrats with alternative ideas and explanations does not perhaps close but is narrowed. The reason why I said it is narrowing is because, Ömer Dinçer called on ERI and other think tanks and civil society organizations immediately after 4+4+4 was enacted to discuss how to implement the policy, even though we significantly opposed the process of legislating the proposed bill. The result of increasing the compulsory age of starting school to 66 months was achieved during these discussions. Hence, I say that the window is narrowing because you still can influence the decisions to a certain extent.

This is an important dilemma. We often hear people say, “Well, this is what the general public demanded.” Now, one of the tasks of a policymaker is to create a fine balance between scientific requirements and political demands and needs especially in an area like education. If the demand that 4+4+4 satisfied was to open vocational religious schools or to offer elective religious courses, then the bureaucrats should have discussed at least – without completely rejecting it – how they could make improvements to make the biggest contribution [of such schools] to the Turkish education system. This is perhaps a trivial example but this could have been discussed at least. Politicians could have discussed whether these schools should be opened or they should be added to 8 years, or whether it would be 5+3 or 6+2. However, no platform was provided to discuss these options in Turkey. Yes, we were listened; many were asked of their opinions but it was already clear what the politicians were going to do. As a result, we had a very small influence, and it was not too bad.

As I said before, the window did not close and the policy dialogue did not end, but the bureaucrats’ capacity to navigate that window has declined. As a result, I argue that a change in key factors, which foreground the educational reform, from economic and social development to cultural and ideological values resulted in putting a halt to and even regressing the dialogue between public authorities and civil society organizations. Yet, I am aware that different organizations have experienced this process differently. While government like-minded organizations, or agencies whose outlook is similar to that of the government, have had an opportunity to get even closer, other institutions, which are not perceived to be government like-minded, were opposed – this is not the entire institution’s perspective but rather different individuals’ perceptions at MoNE. As for ERI, we started receiving reactions about our studies. While some did not change their attitude about ERI, some were inclined to sulk. But these are ordinary, meaning that I am not really surprised.

Bureaucracy and public policy are indeed just like this. A laboratory environment is not a place where people think alike, act alike, and feel alike. But after 2011, I think, in terms of political culture in Turkey, we have gone further back than the progress we had made between 2003 and 2011. This is true for private tutoring institutions and the examination for entering secondary schools. Although the tablets that have been distributed to students through the Fatih Project are important to handle inequalities in Turkey, it is still true for this project as well. The Ministry of National Education did not design the project; it was politically imposed from the top.

So after 2011, we went even further back from the progress we made between 2003 and 2011?

After all, we are still in a better place in terms of public policy now than in 2003.

In that case – although we do not know what the national will dictates – shall we say that the bigger pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place in terms of data-driven decision-making in Turkey with the AK Party, regardless of the next party in line?

No, we cannot say that. But what we can say is that steps in that direction have been taken.

I asked this question particularly in terms of understanding the future impact of think tanks.

As for the impact of think tanks, I started out by stating two goals for ERI: One is to inform public policymaking, and the other is to assist the general public in forming an opinion. Given acute polarization in our society where political fights are commonplace, it is very crucial for our democracy that citizens obtain objective data about what is happening in education. This is true for other sectors such as health, energy and environment, but for us especially in education. Yes, citizens must obtain information, and more preferably citizens must create their won opinions based on objective data. For example, I feel helpless at times when the government takes an action about medications, and I see that different people have different opinions about the action, and these opinions are sharply separated into partisan and non-partisan camps. I fell helpless in terms of getting informed.

Therefore, one of the things that think tanks should continue to do in the long run is to inform the general public about the actions of policy actors – no matter what their relations have been like with the government, which by the way can change or even stop with the next government, although the government would know that this would destroy their legitimacy. As the society becomes more open, and democratic participation increases – I am not trying to present an optimistic picture here but if these are the legitimate expectations for the future – what civil society organizations have to say about public administration and public policies will become more important for policymakers and bureaucrats, at which point it will not be plausible for them to close their doors. Therefore, I think the objective of informing the general public should be the priority.

In the meantime, if MoNE intends to make more evidence-based decisions in the future, they need to resolve the ideological debate among stakeholders as to what the future of education will entail. I have always proposed this: Just like how crucial the Constitutional Committee has been to create a common constitution for all, it is also crucial to bring diverse stakeholders around the same table to discuss what to teach and how to teach children in Turkey and to reach consensus on minimum expectations and interests, which should not be intervened by the ruling power. When you do not achieve this, political authorities continue to significantly intervene [in the policy process] in accordance with their priorities, and as they do that, they sure will ignore evidence. To me, there are many issues to be discussed and resolved at least at a conceptual level amidst this confusion such as: What should be the content of our education? How shall we approach diversity? How shall we handle religion in education? What should be the language of instruction? How about the school autonomy? Will there be decentralization?

Of course, the interesting thing is that the significant portion of these problems is directly related to the Constitution. When the Republic was established, education was taken as a nation-state project in Turkey. Back then, the government used to limit a majority of the things you would be able to do today through the constitution, regulations or its reflexes, for example the issues of decentralization or instruction in native language. When this is absent, the utilization of evidence will perhaps be limited but never zero. If we achieve this, I think [evidence-based decision-making] has a future in Turkey. The ideological debate in Turkey is not even about what we should do. This is what I am trying to say. We need to get rid of the “turning lathe” image of our education system in Turkey. This is probably a very difficult expectation and we cannot break this image in Turkey. Whoever comes to power, they try to restructure the education system in accordance with their own expectations. If this changes, I think the chances of utilizing evidence will be plenty.

Even if it does not change, and if you ask me what can change or how it will go, then I turn to the institutions. We need to look at the institutional approach and existing expertise at MoNE. Existing expertise and capacity at the Ministry of National Education should be as high as those of the Central Bank, Treasury and the Ministry of Development in Turkey. It is of utmost importance to deploy policymakers at all levels in Turkey who have the capacity to think analytically, to conceive the problems holistically within their own systems, to analyse the consequences and implications of actions, and utilize this knowledge. The obstacle standing in the way is what I just mentioned. When you determine educational policies in accordance with your political and cultural agenda, then the bureaucrats that you recruit try to implement that agenda in the most effective way possible. This may not sound like a bad idea in principle or on paper, but as I said before, it is very important for the bureaucrats to have the capacity to harmonize what is required by the political will and what is required by their technical expertise. Nevertheless, the political authority might prevent the deployment of such talent at the Ministry or if that talent already existed at the Ministry, the authority could limit its utilization. As I said before, none of these ever comes down to absolute zero or goes up to absolute one. This can take place differently in different ministries, for different people, or for different departments at the same ministry. This is a very drifting structure. As a result, our task should be to inform citizens, and to continue working with the Ministry staff and support them all along.

What is the power of think tanks in changing the agenda in addition to conducting research on existing policies or decisions? During the Minister of Education Nabi Avcı’s speech at SETA (Political, Economic and Social Research Foundation), while everyone was discussing the case of private tutoring institutions, you asked, “When will the teacher education be an item of agenda?” and you touched on agenda-setting.

Let me give you two different answers here. First, the issue of impact evaluation is very critical. National education in Turkey has an image of a jigsaw puzzle. The biggest reason why there is such an image is because decisions have not been measured, or have not been measurable, or no corrections have been made based on existing assessments. The fact that the examination for entering secondary education has changed several times during the last decade is a strong indicator of how far behind we are in terms of policymaking culture. This is significant in terms of policy. When it comes to important issues among the general public or the topics that public opinion dictates, the Ministry does not have such an approach as: “Please wait, we are investigating the situation in length and breadth, and we will resolve it accordingly.” They should say this, and really investigate the issue in greater detail and propose a solution, and preferably monitor the implementation of that proposed solution, and learn lessons based on which they should gradually improve the system without completely redesigning it.

Therefore, the foible of public administration and public policymaking in Turkey is monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It is treated as if M&E does not exist. Thus, what we end up doing becomes either completely wrong or right. That is what I have already said elsewhere; there is almost no one who seriously considers that pilot projects, innovative projects should be implemented and tried out in schools first by different institutions on a micro-scale in order to figure out successful applications. It is important not just for public but also for academic institutions to work with schools in order to find different solutions for educational problems in different places in Turkey, and once these solutions are designed and implemented, the Ministry should work to scale them up. However, the Ministry is not providing such a platform. Or research assistants or faculty members at universities are not provided with incentives to work like that. So what is happening instead? The Ministry is thinking of an alternative; they implement it as a pilot project sometimes, but sometimes they scale it up to the entire country such that 16 million students are introduced to a new system, and 3 years after they jump to another. An illustration of this is the teacher recruitment. One year, they had the permission for a teaching certificate; the following year no one was permitted. [The Ministry] never considers the need to approach different fields of application in teaching differently. This is a very significant deficiency, and unfortunately we are not making any progress in this area.

As for the other part of the question (i.e., the issue of agenda-setting), we have moral responsibility especially in terms of education reform. As I said before, we have a set of principles regarding education, and children’s rights constitute a core principle. We pay serious attention to children’s right to participate in decision-making regarding their own education. As a matter of fact, we have both a reactive and a proactive role. Our reactive role entails advising the ministry’s work, monitoring it, and informing the general public. Our proactive role entails seeking to highlight issues that are not in the Ministry’s agenda but are important for both the Ministry and Turkey. Both of these roles are important. We need to remember that communication constitutes a significant part in undertaking both of these roles. The biggest difference between academic studies and [applied] policy studies is the communication among institutions, and disseminating [the information] effectively to right people, and most of the time these right people are the citizens themselves.

Therefore, how efficiently you reach out to citizens and institutions that have an influence on MoNE is very important in determining the agenda. To be honest – this was in the news as well – Ön-der’s visit to the Prime Minister resulted in incorporating the idea of open primary school into law. I am telling you what I read in the newspaper. The newspaper wrote that the president of Ön-der made a visit to the Prime Minister and the option of open primary school was discussed in the meeting. Fifteen days later, the proposed bill included open primary school within the first 4 years of education, which basically means home schooling. To us, this is lobbying whereas we do advocacy work. We do not establish interest-driven relations with the government, the parliament, or bureaucracy, and we should not even consider it. What does advocacy mean? It means, you create a distant yet constructive relationship with the general public, the parliament and bureaucracy, and collect data and provide evidence for their decisions. If the context in Turkey becomes normalized instead of polarized, this indeed can be successful within its own boundaries. You do not have to do lobbying to achieve this. As a matter of fact, I have concerns and question marks regarding the legitimacy of the results obtained through lobbying. Correspondingly, yes it is easier to influence the political agenda via lobbying. It is due to this reason that the lobbying agencies are greatly demanded around the world, and can make significant amount of money in return for their efforts. But our job is to continue inform the general public with the funds received as a civil society initiative. While doing this, we have to remain within the limits of advocacy. Within these boundaries, we need to continue to talk with all stakeholders in bureaucracy and other educational think tanks, regardless of their ideological differences, and without seeing these differences as obstacles. Dialogue and effective communication with all institutions underline the foundation of ERI’s work.

***

Please cite this publication as follows:

Research Turkey (July, 2014), “Interview with Mr. Batuhan Aydagül (Education Reform Initiative): ‘Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge in Turkey’”, Vol. III, Issue 7, pp.20-32, Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, ResearchTurkey. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=6587)

References

Şaşmaz, Aytuğ (April, 2013) “To Which Direction Does the Education Policy of Ak Party Change?”, Vol. II, Issue 2, pp. 40-47, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, ResearchTurkey. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=3044)