DQ13

Gender Inequality in Schooling: The Case of Turkey

Bruce H. Rankin Koç University

Işık A. Aytaç Boǧaziçi University

Drawing on recent research on education in developing countries, this article examines gen-

der inequality in schooling in Turkey. Using a nationally representative sample of Turkish

youths, it assesses the effects of macrostructure, family resources, and cultural attitudes and

practices on primary and postprimary school attainment. The results show that while locality,

family resources, and family structure and culture influence the education of both genders,

girls’ chances of postprimary schooling are greater if they live in metropolitan areas and in less

patriarchal families. Birth-order comparisons indicate that older daughters are less likely to

complete postprimary schooling than are their younger sisters. Girls’ primary school attain-

ment is facilitated by having other family members who help with child care. The findings are

discussed in light of trends in Turkish society and their implications for future research.

Sociology of Education 2006, Vol. 79 (January): 25–43 25

It is generally accepted that the spread ofeducation is one of the most important fac-tors in the social and economic develop- ment of countries. Furthermore, there is growing awareness that the education of girls, in particular, has significant benefits for developing countries. Educating girls boosts family income and social status and leads to women’s higher earnings and occupational mobility. Health-related benefits include greater fertility control and life expectancy and lower levels of infant mortality. At the societal level, the education of women advances a number of important develop- mental goals, including higher living stan- dards, control of population growth, and improvements in public health (for a review of this literature, see Hill and King 1993). Research has shown that the expansion of education for girls in developing countries has a stronger effect on long-term economic

prosperity than does the education of boys (Benavot 1989).

Despite rising educational levels across much of the developing world, gender inequities in education persist (Benavot 1989; Benavot and Riddle 1988; Filmer and Pritchett 1999; Ghorayshi 1993; Meyer, Ramirez, and Soysal 1992; UNESCO 2004; Wils and Goujon 1998). In many developing countries, girls are less likely to be literate or to attend school than are boys. When they do attend, they attain less than do boys at both the primary and secondary levels. For exam- ple, ratios of female–male primary school enrollment are the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa and southern and western Asia (.86, .84, and .89, respectively), and the gender gap is higher at the secondary level (.79, .77, and .79) (UNESCO 2004). International development agencies now agree that gen- der inequality in educational attainment is a

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Rankin and Aytaç

major obstacle to social progress in develop- ing countries (UNICEF 1994; United Nations Development Program, UNDP, 1995). In short, understanding gender inequality in education has significant implications not only for girls and their families, but for society as a whole.

The expansion of a secular, Western-ori- ented mass educational system has been cen- tral to the modernization efforts of the Turkish state. Mandatory primary schooling was established by the mid-1920s, and education- al reform included a commitment to the edu- cation of women, a progressive goal that places Turkey well ahead of other developing countries.1 Despite long-term governmental support for mass education, many children in Turkey do not attend any school, and others drop out without finishing primary school (Gök 1999; Özbay 1981; Tunalı 1996; Ünal and Özsoy 1998) and large gender differ- ences in educational outcomes are observed (Aytaç and Rankin 2004; Gök 1999; Kağıtçıbaşı 1999; Özbay 1981).

Researchers have proposed various expla- nations for the gender gap in education in Turkey. However, for the most part, studies have used small-scale and nonrepresentative samples or aggregate census data, which pre- clude individual-level multivariate analysis (see, e.g., Hortaçsu 1995; Özbay 1981). To our knowledge, only three quantitative studies using nationally representative data have been conducted (Aytaç and Rankin 2004; Tansel 2002; Tunalı 1996). Furthermore, with one exception (see Aytaç and Rankin 2004), no quantitative studies have included cultural attitudes and practices that are often linked to gender differences in educational attainment, particularly in Muslim societies. Thus, past research is of limited value in assessing the rel- ative importance of alternative explanations.

In this article, we examine the reasons behind the differential school attainment of boys and girls in Turkey using a nationally representative sample of 15 to 19 year olds. In light of the history of educational expan- sion in Turkey, we expect that school attain- ment processes will differ by level of school- ing. Using the completion of five years of mandatory primary schooling as our compar- ison category, we assess the factors that pre-

dict when sons and daughters do not com- plete primary school and when they go beyond it.2 Our theoretical framework draws on the literature on education in developing countries, highlighting the effects of macrostructure, family resources, and cultural beliefs and attitudes on children’s education. The findings have important implications for addressing the problem of gender education- al inequality in a country where, despite sub- stantial progress, a considerable gender gap remains.

EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Much of the work on educational attainment has built on Blau and Duncan’s (1967) pio- neering study of social mobility showing the impact of fathers’ occupation and education on their sons’ attainment. Some studies have sought to extend this research to include the social-psychological factors that mediate parental characteristics (Sewell and Hauser 1975), while others have highlighted struc- tural forces, especially economic forces, that shape the attainment process (Baron and Bielby 1980; Horan 1978; Jencks et al. 1979). The lack of structural factors in earlier research on status attainment has been cited as one reason for the relative inability of con- ventional status attainment models to explain female attainment (England 1992).

As the comparative basis of stratification research has broadened, there is a growing recognition that cultural and institutional variables are needed to account for divergent cross-national outcomes (Blossfeld and Shavit 1993). The need to incorporate these factors is most evident in the diversity of social con- texts that are found in the developing world, where educational attainment is shaped by the interrelated effects of national and global macrostructures, local communities, schools, and families (for a recent review of this litera- ture, see Buchmann and Hannum 2001). With the exception of school-level factors, for which we have no data, we adopt a similar conceptual approach, highlighting potential sources of gender educational inequality.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 27

Macrostructural Factors

In most societies, the state plays a central role in the education of citizens. Not only does the state determine the amount and distribution of educational resources, but through a range of policies, it controls who gets educated and how much education they get (Fuller and Rubinson 1992). The state shapes the educa- tional attainment of children most directly through laws that govern compulsory school- ing. However, structural weaknesses in many less developed countries often result in an inadequate supply of education, poor-quality schools, and regional disparities (Fuller 1991). For example, the lack of secondary schools in many developing countries (including Turkey) contributes to high drop-out rates at the end of primary school (Filmer and Pritchett 1999). The state can promote gen- der educational equality by mandating uni- versal schooling, reducing the cost of educa- tion, and promoting new norms regarding female education (Fuller and Liang 1999). However, even in countries with long histories of mandatory schooling for all children, the education of women lags if other policies that are designed to improve gender equity are not implemented (El-Sanabary 1993; Hill and King 1993).

Economic structure also influences educa- tional attainment. Education expands with industrialization and urbanization as changes in the occupational structure increase the skill content of jobs and the returns to education. While the growth of urban, nonmanual work typically increases the demand for education (Blossfeld and Shavit 1993; Treiman 1970), how such macrostructural changes affect the status of women is the subject of some debate. According to modernization theo- rists, institutional and cultural changes that are associated with development lead to greater gender equality (Inkeles and Smith 1974; Wilensky 1968). Others have pointed to a new global division of labor that limits job opportunities for women, often relegat- ing them to unskilled and low-paying jobs in the informal sector. Restricted employment opportunities for women in developing coun- tries discourage parents from investing in their daughters’ education (Buchmann 2000;

Clark 1992; El-Sanabary 1993; Hill and King 1993; Hyde 1993; Michelson, Nkomo, and Smith 2001).

The spread of modern political culture also helps explain the expansion of education in the Third World. World institutional theorists have highlighted the global convergence around Western educational systems that are thought to be functional to the needs of the modern state (Meyer and Hannan 1979; Meyer et al. 1992). Such global cultural imperatives force developing countries to adopt Western educational systems to signify membership in the modern world (Fuller 1991). As far as gender is concerned, the ide- ology of formal schooling helps construct new female identities by legitimating new pri- vate and public roles for women (Ramirez and Weiss 1979). The diffusion of new gender identities is aided by international institutions and organizations that support the rights of women (Boli and Thomas 1997; Schafer 1999).

Family Factors

One of the most consistent findings related to educational attainment in the developing world is the effect of family factors. Family decisions about the education of children— and the gendered nature of these decisions— are strongly influenced by family structure, economic circumstances, and cultural prefer- ences regarding education. Most studies have shown that family socioeconomic status, as measured by financial assets and parental education, promotes the education of chil- dren (Buchmann 2000; Fuller and Liang 1999; Lloyd and Blanc 1996; Wolfe and Behrman 1984).

Whether family resources are sufficient to provide for the education of children depends on family size and composition. The number, age, gender, and birth order of children influ- ence educational outcomes (for a review, see Steelman et al. 2002). Large families must stretch resources—both material and nonmate- rial—across more children, thus reducing the overall amount of schooling that children receive (Powell and Steelman 1990). Commonly referred to as the problem of resource dilution, the negative effect of sibsize

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Rankin and Aytaç

has been replicated in several studies of devel- oping countries, and outcomes have often var- ied by the age and gender of children. Sibsize effects are sometimes stronger for older chil- dren (Parrish and Willis 1993), and, in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa and Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, the education of girls is affected more than is the education of boys (El-Sanabary 1993; Lloyd and Blanc 1996). Growing up in a large family can be especially disadvantageous for older sisters (Greenhalgh 1985; Lloyd and Gage-Brandon 1994).

A common family practice in developing countries is the selective education of chil- dren—some go to school, while others stay home to help with household duties or go out to earn money. Thus, it is important to understand how family circumstances and work obligations that compete with school- ing affect the educational attainment of boys and girls. Although the demand on children’s time is especially heavy in rural agricultural households because of the extensive use of child labor in that sector (Wood, Swan, and Wood 1986), the urban informal sector of many developing economies includes a sub- stantial number of children (UNICEF 1997). Children are often required to perform a vari- ety of time-consuming tasks in the home (e.g., taking care of younger siblings, helping to prepare food, and performing other house- hold duties) that interfere with schooling (Hill and King 1993).

Whether children are allocated to market or household work also depends on a family’s social resources. Extended family arrange- ments are still common in developing coun- tries, particularly among rural households. Research on the Middle East and North Africa has shown that the education of children, especially daughters, is higher when elderly family members are available to help with domestic responsibilities (El-Sanabary 1993). Similarly, two other African studies found that the effects of sibsize on schooling are lower when extended families are the norm (Buchmann 2000; Lloyd and Blanc 1996).

Where boys and girls face different social expectations related to household or market responsibilities, families’ educational decision making takes on a strong gender bias.

Cultural attitudes and beliefs that privilege males over females are associated with wide gender disparities in educational attainment. This is especially the case in South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, where tradi- tional gender attitudes toward work and fam- ily discourage investment in the education of daughters (Csapo 1981; El-Sanabary 1993; Knodel and Jones 1996; Wils and Goujon 1998). The educational and occupational aspirations of girls are stifled by socialization that enshrines duty to marriage and family as the most important female virtue. In addition, the undereducation of girls is most evident where patriarchal attitudes are reinforced by religious beliefs. To many religious families in Islamic societies, schools pose a threat to the safety and modesty of their daughters and thus to family honor. Furthermore, exposure to modern secular curricula is thought to undermine traditional values. A common response is to withhold daughters from school. The link between Islam and low female education has been supported by sev- eral studies (Csapo 1981; Finn, Dulberg, and Reis 1979; Ghorayshi 1993; Marshall 1985).

BACKGROUND ON TURKEY

Both the role of the state in the moderniza- tion of Turkish society and the influence of global (i.e., Western) political culture are cen- tral to understanding the development of education and the rights of women in Turkish society. Prior to the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Islamic law that institu- tionalized sex segregation and the unequal legal treatment of men and women. The majority of the population received only reli- gious education, if any (Çağ ı r ıcı 1992). In the 1920s, the new republic adopted the Swiss Civil Code and became the first secular Muslim country. A series of reforms were insti- tuted to modernize Turkey using the more developed Western societies as their model (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997; Türkdoğan 1992).

Some of the most important reforms were those related to education. Free mass public education was viewed by the political elites as

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 29

a means of transforming a largely agrarian society that was ruled by Ottoman tradition- alism into a modern and secular industrial nation-state. Access to education until that time had been restricted to the urban elite, and the Turkish state sought to expand edu- cation to the lower social classes and to the small towns and villages of the Turkish hinter- land. Significantly, the reforms required all children, including girls, to attend primary school.

Gender equality in education was an explicit objective in the state’s social agenda, and Mustafa Kemal, the charismatic founder of the Turkish Republic and its first president, frequently spoke in support of women’s rights, including women’s right to education (Arat 1989). Other reforms included equal rights for women and men in divorce and inheritance and, in 1934, the right of women to vote in national elections. While the reforms are generally viewed as having a pos- itive effect on women’s lives, educated women from urban backgrounds were the primary beneficiaries (Erman 1998; Kağıtçıbaşı 1995).

The state has made great strides in achiev- ing its educational goals. In 1935, only 14 percent of villages had schools, whereas by the 1980s, all villages had primary schools (Özbay 1985). The literacy rates for both sexes increased significantly from 1935 to 1990— from 30 percent to 90 percent for men and from 10 percent to 71 percent for women (State Institute of Statistics, SIS, 1993a). In 1990, 95 percent of school-aged boys attended primary school, compared to 89 percent of school-aged girls, illustrating that despite compulsory schooling laws, a nontrivial number of children, mostly girls, were not enrolled in primary school. Moreover, the gender gap was larger in post- primary education, where fewer than two females were enrolled for every three males. At the junior high school level, 35 percent of school-aged females and 56 percent of males were enrolled. At the high school level, 29 percent of females and 45 percent of males and, at the higher education level, 6 percent of females and 9 percent of males were enrolled in 1990 (SIS 2005).

Educational expansion was less successful

in those areas where governmental resources were scarce or reforms were resisted (Özbay 1981; Şahin and Gülmez 2000b; Topses 1999). The slow pace of construction of vil- lage schools hampered education in rural areas (Winter 1984), and as late as the 1980s, many villages had no middle or high school (Özbay 1985). Educational levels are also lower in the less developed eastern and southeastern regions of Turkey, particularly for girls (Şahin and Gülmez 2000a; Tansel 2002; Tunalı 1996). In these regions, under- development overlaps with ethnicity. This is where the largest concentration of Kurdish Turks resides, a group that is ethnically and linguistically distinct from the rest of the Turkish population. The long-term state poli- cy of suppressing Kurdish cultural identity and the imposition of martial law in the 1980s disrupted the education of Kurdish children and continues to fuel the Kurds’ sus- picion of the Turkish educational system (Şahin and Gülmez 2000b). Research has shown that the Kurds are disadvantaged in comparison to the rest of the population on virtually all socioeconomic variables, includ- ing education (İçduygu, Romano, and Sirkeci 1999).

Several of the family-level factors cited ear- lier have been linked to Turkish educational attainment and gender inequality. Conventional status attainment variables, such as parental socioeconomic status, as measured by household income and parental education, are important determinants of children’s education (Tansel 2002; Tunalı 1996). Children from large families get less education and are more likely to be engaged in market work (Tunalı 1996). Compositional effects have also been reported. Having younger siblings at home reduces school attendance, especially for girls who may be needed to care for younger siblings (Eyüboğ lu, Özar, and Tanrıöver 2000).

The use of child labor in the household is a common feature among Turkish families. Children of peasant farming families are often expected to work in the fields, which inter- feres with their schooling and lowers their attainment. The organization of work in the rural economy also contributes to gender inequality in schooling because many rural

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

30 Rankin and Aytaç

women work as agricultural laborers, often as unpaid family workers.3 Thus, the daughters of farming families have lower attendance, are more frequently absent, and ultimately attain less education than do boys. On the other hand, boys often follow in the occupa- tional footsteps of their fathers. When fathers are self-employed, there is a ready job oppor- tunity for sons, who can begin supplement- ing their families’ incomes and are often taken out of school early to begin to work (Tansel 2002).

Most children, however, contribute to the household economy by freeing up the time of adult family members, rather than through direct participation in market work, and the responsibility for household activities falls more heavily on daughters than on sons (Tunalı 1996). Although the employment of mothers may bring in additional household resources for children’s schooling, it can also hinder the schooling of older children, espe- cially of daughters, when help with child care is needed (Eyüboğ lu et al. 2000). The obliga- tion to help with housework and child care is especially burdensome for girls in rural fami- lies (Özbay 1995). However, when there is child care assistance or help with other household tasks from other relatives (typically grandmothers), as is common in Turkey and other parts of the Muslim world, the educa- tional attainment of children is higher (El- Sanabary 1993; Özbay 1995). Strong inter- generational norms of reciprocity in Turkish culture, the persistence of extended families in rural areas, and familial residential proxim- ity facilitate these child care arrangements. In urban areas, where the extended family is less common, 70 percent of adults either coreside with or live near elderly family members (Aytaç 1998).

Cultural beliefs and practices, especially those related to gender, also play a role in educational outcomes in Turkey. Turkish soci- ety is often described as patriarchal with a rigid gender-based division of labor (Arat 1989; Bolak 1997; Erman 2001; Kandiyoti 1988). Signs of traditional patriarchal beliefs are evident in a variety of cultural practices— the head covering worn by women, arranged marriages, bride-price, physical segregation of the sexes within the household, and the

preference for sons (Atalay et al. 1993; Kağıtçıbaşı 1995; Kandiyoti 1977; Timur 1972). Commonly held beliefs reinforce the centrality of the roles of wife and mother for females, which are assumed to require little education beyond basic literacy, while males assume the role of breadwinner and, as the head of the household, the protector of fam- ily honor (Erman 2002). This division of labor is enshrined in the popular proverb “Kız evde, oğ lan işte” (“Girl at home, boy at work”). The ideology of patriarchy is an obstacle to the construction of female identities other than wife a nd mother (Özyeğin 2001) and is cited as one reason for the limited impact of legal reforms that are designed to improve the sta- tus of women (Kağıtçıbaşı 1995).

Research has also suggested that the cul- ture of patriarchy is buttressed by conserva- tive interpretations of Islam. According to Toprak (1995), the subjugation of women under Islam prevented the full implementa- tion of women’s rights enshrined in the legal code, including equal access to education. Similarly, women are marginalized in Turkish labor markets partly because of the Islamic disapproval of women’s paid work (Ecevit 1995), which discourages investment in the education of girls. For some parents, secular education is an anathema to deeply held reli- gious beliefs which corrupts the virtue of chil- dren, especially daughters. While some stud- ies have highlighted the growing diversity of discourse on gender in the Turkish Islamic community (Göle 1998), these claims are consistent with research that has linked con- servative Islamic ideology with low female education in other Muslim countries (Csapo 1981; Finn et al. 1979; Ghorayshi 1993; Marshall 1985).

Considering the dearth of quantitative studies on educational attainment in Turkey, the present study provides an opportunity to assess the relative importance of macrostruc- tural and family-level factors and structural versus cultural explanations. A key unan- swered question is whether family cultural factors help account for gender differences in education once structural characteristics (e.g., region, urbanization, and socioeco- nomic status) are controlled. Buchmann (2000) discounted the role of culture, arguing

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 31

that educational inequalities in less developed countries are rooted in perceptions of educa- tional returns and household resources, rather than patriarchal norms. Given state support for universal primary schooling, we expect that family structural and cultural characteris- tics will be more important for explaining which children go beyond the compulsory primary level. Although the data we analyzed were collected in 1988, they are the only data we are aware of that are both nationally rep- resentative and contain rich information on family cultural beliefs, attitudes, and prac- tices. Our findings provide a benchmark for future research.

RESEARCH METHODS

Data and Sample

The data we use include a household survey and government provincial-level censuses. The household data are from the Turkish Family Structure Survey (TFSS), conducted by the Turkish Government Planning Office and the SIS in 1988. The sample is nationally rep- resentative of all households and contains 18,210 households—12,065 from urban areas and 6,145 from rural areas, which are defined as areas with a population of fewer than 20,000. The TFSS is well suited for this research because it includes extensive mea- sures of the characteristics of the household, the household head, and spouse, as well as background information on all resident household members who were aged 12 and older.

At the time of the survey, the mandatory level of primary schooling in Turkey was five years. Students usually attended primary school from ages 7 to 11 and junior high school from ages 12 to 14. Occasionally, chil- dren repeated a grade or started school a year late. Therefore, we restricted our sample to children aged 15–19, an age group that should have finished junior high school. Since the representativeness of the 7 percent of the households that are female headed is unknown and the number of nonschooled children in these households is too small for multivariate analysis, our research was limited

to households with male heads. The resulting sample size was 8,032 and is composed of children aged 15–19 who resided with both parents.

Data on the provincial labor force and the availability of schools for 1985 were taken from a variety of state statistical sources (dis- cussed later). These data were matched to the household file on the basis of the respon- dent’s province of residence at the time of the survey.

Dependent Variable

School attainment is a categorical variable consisting of three groups: less than primary school (illiterate or had not attended school), completion of primary school, and comple- tion of junior high school or higher. Primary school is the comparison category.

Independent Variables

Macrostructural Factors For region, we used indicator variables to identify the five regions of Turkey, ranging from the most developed to the least developed: west, south, central, north, and east. The eastern region was the comparison category; it is the least developed region of Turkey and home to the largest concentration of Turks of Kurdish ethnicity.4

With regard to urbanization, we used two dummy variables to contrast residence in rural areas with residence in metropolitan and other urban areas. The first indicates resi- dence in one of the three large metropolitan areas in Turkey (Istanbul, Ankara, and İ zmir). The second indicates residence in nonmetro- politan urban areas, defined as areas with an urban population of more than 20,000. Rural location was the comparison group.

For labor market conditions, we used two provincial-level measures to assess the struc- ture of local labor markets and the demand for female workers in 1985 (SIS 1993b). The first is the percentage of employed persons in agriculture. The second assesses gender dif- ferences in employment rates and was mea- sured as the ratio of males to females for all employed persons; higher scores represent a greater male bias in employment. For school

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

32 Rankin and Aytaç

availability, we used the number of junior high schools in each province per 1,000 junior high school-aged population in 1985 (SIS 1987a, 1987b).

Family Resources and Structure For moth- er’s and father’s education, we measured each parent’s education with an indicator that identifies those who had junior high school or higher education. We measured household income using the natural logarithm of net monthly household income in Turkish lira. Farming household is a dummy variable that was coded 1 if the father’s occupation involved some form of agricultural produc- tion.

Father’s employment status is a set of dummy variables that assess four work status- es—not working, worker (wage or salaried), self-employed, and employer. The compari- son group is worker. The education of chil- dren, particularly sons, may be reduced when fathers are self-employed or employers because of early entry into work.

Mother’s employment status was coded 1 if the mother was employed (worked for pay or in exchange for something else). The small number of employed mothers (19 percent) prevented the use of the more detailed mea- sures that were used for father’s employment status.

Home production indicates whether the family earned income from home production, a situation that may involve help from chil- dren and may compete with schooling.

With regard to child care help, if child care help was performed by persons other than the mother or father, the variable was coded 1. Other categories included grandparents, close relatives, and nannies or day care cen- ters. The survey did not allow us to identify whether siblings helped with child care.

For household composition, we used four measures to capture the effects of household age and gender composition. Since the sur- vey did not identify the age of siblings younger than 12, we constructed two mea- sures of the total number of children younger than age 12 for each sex in the household. We also included measures of the number of males and females over age 12.

With regard to the eldest resident son or

daughter, in view of research suggesting that older daughters are particularly disadvan- taged in Turkish families (Eyüboğlu et al. 2000), we included a variable indicating whether the respondent was the eldest of his or her gender residing in the household.

Family Cultural Beliefs and Practices All the family cultural variables were reported by the fathers, since these questions were asked only of the household heads.

Household sex segregation limits interaction between nonfamily members of the opposite sex. Households in which males and females sit in different rooms when there are guests were coded 1.

With regard to gender attitudes and beliefs of the father, we measured traditional gender ideology using the father’s attitudes toward women’s work, coded 1 if the father believed that women should only work in the home, shop for the family needs, or work in the gar- den or field. The variable preference for sons indicates the father’s gender preferences if the parents were to have only one child, coded 1 for a preference for a son and 0 if the father had no preference or if he preferred a girl. The third measure, bride-price, was coded 1 if the father believed that families should receive a bride-price as a condition for a daughter’s marriage.

Educational decision-making power taps into male authority in the family and was coded 1 if the father was solely responsible for decid- ing how much education the children should receive beyond primary school and 0 other- wise (decision made only by the mother or jointly with the mother, the child, or another family member).

Attitudes may also be influenced by expo- sure to nonlocal culture through the mass media. We used an indicator for whether the respondents read newspapers regularly (coded 1 if yes).

The models were estimated controlling for father’s age and child’s age (measured in years). In the analyses that follow, we used sampling weights to adjust for disproportion- ate sampling between urban and rural areas. Because of the presence of multiple children in the same household, we used robust vari- ance estimation to calculate standard errors.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 33

The multivariate analysis is based on multin- omial logit models that were estimated sepa- rately for males and females. A pooled model that includes all gender interaction terms was used to test for significant gender differ- ences in the effects of the independent vari- ables.

FINDINGS

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the variables that were in the analysis. The figures for the dependent vari- able show that at the time of the survey, few 15 to 19 year olds (5 percent) had received less than the mandatory primary schooling. The largest proportion (51 percent) termi- nated their education at the primary level, while the remainder continued on through junior high school or above (44 percent). In comparison, only 7.3 percent of the mothers and 17.3 percent of the fathers had junior high school or more education. The inter- generational comparisons highlight the suc- cess of the state efforts to expand education but also show the relatively low level of edu- cation in the society at the time of the sur- vey.

The figures also show the prevalence of traditional cultural practices and gender-role attitudes. Thirty-five percent of the fathers reported that physical sex segregation was practiced at home, 54 percent believed that women are best suited for household domes- tic duties and should not work for pay outside the home, and 38 percent expressed a pref- erence for sons. The payment of a bride-price was expected by 9 percent of the fathers. Male authority in the family is evident in that over a third of the fathers (37 percent) report- ed that they were solely responsible for deci- sions regarding their children’s education.

Table 2 shows the breakdown of schooling and educational attainment by gender. While 2.8 percent of the boys aged 15 to 19 did not attend or finish primary school, the figure for girls is 2.6 times that for the boys (7.3%). About 55 percent of the girls were primary school graduates, and 38 percent were grad- uates of junior high school or higher, com- pared to 48 percent of the boys who were

graduates of primary school and 49 percent who were graduates of junior high school or higher. In short, the girls were less likely to attend primary school, and when they did, they were less likely to go beyond primary schooling.

An analysis of the pooled sample of boys and girls shows that net of all independent variables, girls were 3.2 times more likely than boys to have no schooling and about half as likely to finish junior high school (tables avail- able on request). To help explain the large gender differences obtained in the pooled model, we compared the results of multino- mial logit analyses that were performed on separate male and female subsamples.

Several macrostructural factors influence the educational attainment process. Where children live matters for their education. First, the eastern region (the comparison group) is clearly different from the rest of the country. The relative risk ratio (rrr) figures indicate that the risk of nonschooling is between one-quar- ter and one-half for girls who live in any region other than the east in comparison to those who reside in the east (rrr range = .227–.508) (see Table 3). This finding is not surprising, given the problems of underdevel- opment, ethnic suppression, and political conflict that have plagued the region.

As for higher levels of attainment, some of the regional effects contradict our hypothe- ses. Residing in the east increases the chances of postprimary schooling, with the exception of males who reside in the north. Others have found similar results and have speculated that the more developed regions have more job opportunities for young people, perhaps in the informal sector, that cause them to leave school earlier. This may be particularly true for the children of poor migrant families who live in the shanty towns of Turkey’s cities (Eyüboğ lu et al. 2000; Tansel 2002; Tunalı 1996). Thus, at the aggregate level, girls liv- ing in the east are disadvantaged, but gender differences in the effects of region on school- ing are not significant when associated struc- tural and family-level factors are controlled.

Turning to the level of urbanization, rural youths are as likely as are urban or metropol- itan youths to attain a primary school educa- tion. However, when it comes to going

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

34 Rankin and Aytaç

Table 1. Characteristics of the Sample: Weighted Means and Standard Deviations

Characteristic Mean SD

Children’s Schoolinga Less than primary school .050 Primary school (reference category) .514 Junior high school and higher .436

Macrostructural Characteristics West .308 Central .246 North .115 South .141 East (reference category) .190 Metro .181 Urban .317 Rural (reference category) .502 % Agriculture 53.277 22.476 Employed male/female ratio 2.195 1.121 Junior high school/1000 junior high school-aged population 1.316 .496

Family Resources and Structure Father’s age (in years) 48.512 8.070 Father junior high school graduate (1 = yes) .173 Mother junior high school graduate (1 = yes) .073 Household income (in Turkish lira)b 298,623.000 381,421.000 Farming household (1 = yes) .284 Father not working .173 Father employer .032 Father self-employed .459 Father worker (reference category) .336 Mother employed (1 = yes) .191 Home production (1 = yes) .036 Child care help (1 = yes) .059 Number of males < 12 years old .668 1.024 Number of females < 12 years old .639 1.038 Number of males aged 12 and older 2.542 1.125 Number of females aged 12 and older 2.394 1.078 Child’s age (in years)a 16.879 1.357 Oldest son/daughter in household (1= yes)a .599

Cultural Beliefs and Practices Sex segregation (1= yes) .345 Traditional gender ideology (1= yes) .538 Preference for sons (1= yes) .378 Bride-price (1= yes) .094 Read newspaper (1= yes) .229 Child’s education decided by the father (1 = yes) .370

a Children’s characteristics are based on the full sample (N = 8,032); other figures are based on a nonduplicate household sample (N = 5,495).

b At the time of the survey, the exchange rate for $1 was approximately 850 Turkish lira.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 35

beyond primary school, metropolitan resi- dence is highly beneficial for girls. Living in a metropolitan area increases girls’ chances of secondary education by nearly 2.3 (rrr = 2.258) times over that of living in a rural area. Rural residence has no effect on the postpri- mary education of boys, and the gender dif- ferences are statistically significant.

Neither of our two measures of the demand for female workers had any effect on educational attainment. In contrast, the role of the state in educational attainment is evi- dent in that provinces with more junior high schools per school-aged population also had more primary and postprimary school gradu- ates.

The expected effects of family socioeco- nomic status, reported in many status attain- ment studies, are confirmed in our results. Parental education is associated with higher attainment for both genders. Mothers’ edu- cation matters more than does fathers’ edu- cation when it comes to the chance of attain- ing primary schooling. Both girls and boys have virtually no chance of going unschooled when their mothers have a junior high school or higher education. Children of parents with a postprimary education are 3 to 4.6 times more likely to complete junior high school or high school.5 Boys from higher-income fami- lies appear to be less likely to go unschooled. Gender differences in the effects of parental education and income, however, are not sig- nificant.

Two occupational variables are related to educational attainment. First, both boys’ and girls’ junior high school and higher educa- tional attainment are lower in farming fami-

lies (rrr = .491 and .386, respectively). This finding fits a pattern that is common to Turkey, where children are expected to help with agricultural production. However, resid- ing in a farming household does not interfere with primary schooling. Second, we expected that when fathers are self-employed, mothers work, or the household is involved in home production, such family income-producing activities would compete with children’s schooling. These hypotheses are generally not supported. As Eyüboğlu et al. (2000) noted, the likelihood of advancing beyond primary school is significantly lower for girls whose mothers are employed (rrr = .738), but neither the effect on boys nor the tests for gender differences are significant. One family resource measure that is related to gender dif- ferences is help with child care. When child care is done by someone other than the par- ents, the risk that daughters will not finish pri- mary school is less than half (rrr = .415), an effect that is statistically different from that for sons.6

The results for the effects of family size and structure are consistent with the resource dilution thesis. The chances of postprimary education for both genders are lower with more siblings under age 12 and for girls when older males are present in the household. Having more females over age 12 in the household increases the risk of nonschooling for boys, but has no effect on girls’ education. Tests for gender differences in the effects of these variables are not significant.

Gender inequality in schooling is, however, seen in the gendered effects of birth order. The hypothesis that the household’s eldest

Table 2. Percentage of School Attainment, by Gendera

School Attainment % Boys % Girls

Less than primary school 2.78 7.34

Primary school 48.18 54.71

Junior high school and higher 49.05 37.96

N (unweighted) 4,158 3,874

a Figures are weighted.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

36 Rankin and Aytaç

Table 3. Weighted Multinomial Logistic Models of Male and Female School Attainmenta

Full Model

Males Females

< Primary > Junior High < Primary > Junior High (versus (versus (versus (versus

Variable Primary) Primary) Primary) Primary)

Macrostructure West .570 .409*** .376* .359*** Central .350 .639* .349* .464*** North .663 .710 .227** .443*** South .577 .501*** .508* .630* Urban 1.202 .994 1.013 1.321* Metro .352 1.150 .361 2.258*** % Agriculture 1.008 1.003 1.011 .983 Employed male/female ratio 1.418 1.108 1.282 .783 Junior high school/1,000 population .510 1.449*** .414** 1.819***

Family Resources and Structure Father’s age .997 1.004 1.026* 1.006 Father junior high school graduate .857 4.591*** .682 3.829*** Mother junior high school graduate .000*** 3.878*** .000*** 2.926*** Log household income .732* 1.046 .797 1.095 Farming household .680 .491*** 1.189 .386*** Father not working 1.296 .798 1.109 1.032 Father employer 2.124 1.585 .855 1.111 Father self-employed 1.096 1.018 1.308 1.219 Mother employed 1.372 .841 1.234 .738* Home production 1.111 .964 .416 .856 Child care help 1.547 1.219 .415* .968 Number of males < 12 years old 1.053 .891** 1.232** .840* Number of females < 12 years old .988 .796*** 1.124 .768*** Number of males aged 12 and older 1.163 .949 1.027 .857** Number of females aged 12 and older 1.198* 1.031 .999 .891 Child’s age 1.022 1.070* 1.080 1.145*** Oldest son/daughter in household 1.041 1.037 1.124 .748*

Cultural Beliefs and Practices Household sex segregation 1.210 .987 1.127 .612*** Traditional gender ideology 1.128 .768** 1.110 .495*** Preference for sons .888 .985 .818 .812 Bride-price 1.563 .673* 2.092*** .772 Read newspaper .815 1.761*** .709 1.790*** Education decided by the father 1.329 .823* 1.350 .663***

F (64, 5436) 573.60*** 227.43***

N (unweighted) 4,158 3,874

Note: The comparison category is primary school attainment. Figures are relative risk ratios, adjusted for household clustering.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests). a Coefficients in bold face indicate statistically significant gender differences (p < .05).

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 37

daughter will be educationally disadvantaged is supported. Although being the eldest has no effect on sons, the likelihood of the eldest daughter being a junior high or high school graduate is about three-quarters of the likeli- hood of her younger siblings (rrr = .748).

Finally, cultural attitudes and practices have a strong influence on the education of children, independent of macrostructural and other family-level factors. The practice of sex segregation and the father’s beliefs in confin- ing women to the domestic sphere strongly depress the chances of girls completing junior high school (rrr = .612 and .495, respective- ly). To a lesser degree, traditional gender ide- ology also reduces the educational attain- ment of boys, but gender differences are sta- tistically significant. Similarly, the likelihood of attaining a postprimary education is lower for both sexes when fathers are the sole decision makers regarding children’s education and higher when fathers regularly read a newspa- per. Although the gender differences are not significant, postprimary school attainment for boys is also lower when fathers say that fami- lies should receive a bride-price when daugh- ters marry.

In general, the results show that cultural effects on attainment and gender inequality are seen mainly at the postprimary level. Traditional cultural attitudes and practices do not influence state-mandated primary school- ing, with one exception: Daughters are twice as likely to have no schooling when fathers expect a bride-price to be paid for their daughters. Gender differences, however, are not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This article has shed new light on the educa- tional attainment process and the reasons behind the gender gap in schooling in Turkey. On the basis of our reading of the history of Turkish mass education and the findings of earlier educational research, we anticipated that the factors that are associated with attaining compulsory primary schooling would be different than those that are associ- ated with attaining postprimary schooling. Our results confirm that attainment processes

and the factors that contribute to gender inequality differ by level of schooling. Overall, the macrostructural and cultural factors do not help predict gender differences in non- schooling. This finding is consistent with the effective enforcement of the state’s policy of universal primary education for both boys and girls, such that even rural residence and traditional gender ideology and practices, both associated with gender inequality in postprimary schooling, do not prevent girls from finishing primary school. As such, the 1997 law that increased mandatory schooling from five to eight years bodes well for raising educational attainment and reducing gender inequality over the long run. Once enough children have reached an age when they should have completed the eight years of mandatory schooling, it will be important to replicate the present study with this new cohort.

One of the most important factors in explaining gender differences at the macrostructural level is the level of urbaniza- tion. For girls, residence in an urban area increases the likelihood of postprimary educa- tion. In that regard, as the country becomes increasingly urbanized, the educational gen- der gap should shrink. This finding has sever- al plausible explanations: better labor market opportunities for educated women in urban areas, the greater availability of schools in urban areas, and urban social norms that encourage the education of daughters. More research is needed to determine which factors are important, particularly in light of the fact that the urban advantage accrues mainly to metropolitan residents. Future research should incorporate measures of local commu- nity characteristics. One limitation of our provincial-level labor market measures is that they do not take into account structural vari- ation within provinces that influences educa- tional supply and demand.

Family resources, especially parental edu- cation, are important determinants of educa- tion for both boys and girls. Similar to Tunalı’s (1996) finding, maternal education in Turkey seems to be more important in determining who gets a primary school education, while the educational levels of both parents con- tribute to postprimary schooling. Although

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

38 Rankin and Aytaç

we found no gender differences in the effects of parental education, help with child care promotes the schooling of girls, probably by freeing them from child care and other household responsibilities. Research on the Middle East and North Africa produced simi- lar findings (El-Sanabary 1993).

Regarding family structure, large sibsize, which can deplete family resources and put more pressure on children to contribute to the household, reduces postprimary school- ing for both sons and daughters. Since the effects are due mainly to the presence of younger siblings, the finding suggests that being at the top of the birth order is disad- vantageous. Indeed, our results show that the eldest daughters, but not the eldest sons, are less likely to go on to secondary school than are younger siblings of the same gender. This finding confirms the research on Turkey, as well as on other societies, showing that eldest daughters are often saddled with household and child care responsibilities (Eyüboğlu et al. 2000; Greenhalgh 1985; Lloyd and Gage- Brandon 1994).

As one of the only empirical studies to assess the effects of culture on schooling in Turkey, our results show that a major barrier to gender equality in Turkish education is how patriarchal family beliefs and practices discourage the education of girls. Daughters who live in households that practice sex seg- regation or whose fathers espouse traditional gender views are much less likely to go beyond primary school. The fact that the cul- tural effects are independent of our family background and macrostructural variables highlights the importance of including cultur- al factors in studies of educational attain- ment. The claim that educational inequalities in the less developed world are driven more by parents’ evaluation of educational returns and constraints on household resources, rather than on patriarchal norms (see Buchmann 2000), did not prove true in Turkey, where the role of patriarchal culture may be more typical of that of the broader region of North Africa and the Middle East (El-Sanabary 1993).

One interesting finding of our study was that traditional gender attitudes that are assumed to benefit sons also inhibit the post-

primary schooling of boys. One possible explanation is that patriarchal gender atti- tudes and practices may signal a more gener- al ambivalence toward public education. The state’s modern and secular curriculum may be seen as a threat to traditional culture, eroding traditional family values and patriarchal con- trol over children. The education of sons can undermine family well-being if it increases the chances that sons will migrate away from the family in search of economic opportunity. Why patriarchy should lower the educational attainment of sons is a matter for further study.

New research is needed to determine whether the constellation of factors that were reported in this study continue to affect gen- der inequality in schooling. Regarding the role of cultural factors, trends in Turkish soci- ety and their effects on educational outcomes need to be reassessed. Our results highlight the need for greater efforts by the state and civil society organizations to change percep- tions of women’s roles and to remove the remaining barriers to women’s advancement in society. This process is being helped by the European Union’s application process, since membership in the European Union is condi- tioned on improving the status of Turkish women, and by international nongovern- mental organizations that support new cul- tural and social norms that benefit women (Schafer 1999). In addition, as in other parts of the Muslim world, Islam is resurgent in Turkey, and its implications for the status of women are not well understood. Earlier research that linked Islam to female subordi- nation (Toprak 1995) is contrasted with recent research that has highlighted the diversity of Islamic discourse on gender, including the articulation of a feminist per- spective (Göle 1998) and claims that a com- mitment to Islam can empower women (Erman 2001). As such, the relationship between Islam and female education may be highly contingent. However, to the extent that this cultural trend promotes a religiously based ideology that reinforces traditional gender roles, gender equity in education will be more difficult to achieve.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 39

NOTES

1. The term developing country typically refers to low-income countries with limited industrialization. In 1990, two years after data for the present study were collected, Turkey’s per capita income was only $1,350, an amount that put it at 98 among the 175 countries that were ranked (Central Intelligence Agency 1990). UNDP (1995) cat- egorizes Turkey as a developing country, as do cross-national studies published in acade- mic journals (see, e.g., Marshall 1985).

2. In 1997, the Turkish government increased the number of years of mandatory schooling to eight years, adding three years of junior high school.

3. The vast majority of employed women work in agriculture. In 1985, only 12 percent of all employed women worked in nonagri- cultural jobs (Ecevit 1995).

4. At the time the data were collected, governmental surveys did not ask questions about language or ethnic background, nor were accurate provincial estimates of the Kurdish population available. Although we controlled for some of the characteristics that are associated with Kurdish ethnicity (e.g., region and socioeconomic status), the lack of this information means that we are unable to assess how being Kurdish or living in a pre- dominately Kurdish area affects children’s educational outcomes.

5. A postanalysis test of statistical differ- ences in parental educational effects was sig- nificant for both boys’ and girls’ primary schooling, but not for their postprimary schooling. The results are available on request.

6. We replicated the multivariate models using unweighted data. The results are simi- lar with two exceptions. In the unweighted model, child care assistance had no effect on the female risk of not finishing primary school. In addition, girls with more females older than 12 years old in the household were less likely to go beyond primary school, and gender differences were statistically signifi- cant. Tables are available on request.

REFERENCES

Arat, Yeşim. 1989. The Patriarchal Paradox: Women Politicians in Turkey. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Atalay, Beşir, Mehmet Kontaş, Sema Beyazıt, and Kemal Madenoğ lu. 1993. Türk Aile Yapısı Araştırması [Turkish Family Structure Survey]. Ankara, Turkey: Sosyal Planlama Genel Müdürlüğü Araştırma Dairesi, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı.

Aytaç, Işık A. 1998. “Intergenerational Living Arrangements in Turkey.” Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology 13:241–64.

Aytaç, Işık A., and Bruce H. Rankin. 2004. “Modernity, Traditionality, and Junior High School Attainment in Turkey.” Social Indicators Research 66:267–82.

Baron, James, and William Bielby. 1980. “Bringing the Firms Back In: Stratification, Segmentation, and the Organization of Work.” American Sociological Review 45:737–66.

Benavot, Aaron. 1989. “Education, Gender, and Economic Development: A Cross-national Study.” Sociology of Education 62:14–32.

Benavot, Aaron, and Phyllis Riddle. 1988. “The Expansion of Primary Education, 1870–1940: Trends and Issues.” Sociology of Education 61:191–210.

Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Blossfeld, Hans-Peter, and Yossi Shavit. 1993. “Persisting Barriers: Changes in Educational Opportunities in Thirteen Countries.” Pp. 1–23 in Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries, edited by Yossi Shavit and Hans- Peter Blossfeld. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bolak, Hale Cihan. 1997. “Marital Power Dynamics: Women Providers and Working-Class Households in Istanbul.” Pp. 218–47 in Cities in the Developing World: Issues, Theory, and Policy, edited by Josef Gugler. New York: Oxford University Press.

Boli, John, and George M. Thomas. 1997. “World Culture in the World Polity: A Century of International Nongovernmental Organization.” American Sociological Review 62:171–90.

Bozdoğan, Sibel, and Reşat Kasaba. 1997. “Kemalist Certainties and Modern Ambiguities.” Pp. 15–36 in Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, edit- ed by Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Buchmann, Claudia. 2000. “Family Structure,

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

40 Rankin and Aytaç

Parental Perceptions, and Child Labor in Kenya: What Factors Determine Who Is Enrolled in School.” Social Forces 78:1349–79.

Buchmann, Claudia, and Emily Hannum. 2001. “Education and Stratification in Developing Countries: A Review of Theories and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:77–102.

Çağırıcı, Mustafa. 1992. “İ slam Düşüncesinde Aile Ahlakı” [Family Ethics in Islamic Thought]. Pp. 341–52 in Sosyo-Kültürel Değişme Sürecinde Türk Ailesi, cilt I. Ankara, Turkey: T. C. Başbakanlık Aile Araştırma Kurumu.

Central Intelligence Agency. 1990. The 1990 CIA World Factbook. Washington, DC: Author.

Clark, Roger 1992. “Multinational Corporate Investment and Women’s Participation in Higher Education in Noncore Nations.” Sociology of Education 65:37–47.

Csapo, Marg. 1983. “Religious, Social and Economic Factors Hindering the Education of Girls in Northern Nigeria.” Comparative Education 17:311–19.

Ecevit, Yıldız. 1995. “The Status and Changing Forms of Women’s Labour in the Urban Economy,” Pp. 81–88 in Women in Modern Turkish Society, edited by Şirin Tekeli. London: Zed Books.

El-Sanabary, Nagat. 1993. “Middle East and North Africa.” Pp. 136–74 in Women’s Education in Developing Countries: Barriers, Benefits, and Policies, edited by Elizabeth M. King and M. Anne Hill. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

England, Paula. 1992. “From Status Attainment to Segregation and Devaluation.” Contemporary Sociology 21:634–47.

Erman, Tahire. 1998. “The Impact of Migration on Turkish Rural Women.” Gender & Society 12:146–67.

—-. 2001. “Rural Migrants and Patriarchy in Turkish Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25:118–33.

—-. 2002. “Money-Earning Activities and Empowerment Experiences of Rural Migrant Women in the City: The Case of Turkey.” Women’s Studies International Forum 25:395–10.

Eyüboğ lu, Ayşe, Şemsa Özar, and Hülya T. Tanrıöver. 2000. Kentlerde Kadınların İ ş Yaşamına Katılım Sorunlarının Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Kültürel Boyutları [The Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions of Labor Force Participation Problems of Women in Urban Areas]. Ankara, Turkey: T.C. Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü.

Filmer, Deon, and Lant Pritchett. 1999. “The Effect of Household Wealth on Educational Attainment: Evidence from 35 Countries.” Population and Development Review 25:85–120.

Finn, Jeremy, Loretta Dulberg, and Janet Reis. 1979. “Sex Differences in Educational Attainment: A Cross-National Perspective.” Harvard Educational Review 49:477–503.

Fuller, Bruce. 1991. Growing Up Modern: The Western State Builds Third World Schools. New York: Routledge.

Fuller, Bruce, and Xiaoyan Liang. 1999. “Which Girls Stay in School?: The Influence of Family Economy, Social Demands, and Ethnicity in South Africa.” Pp. 181–215 in Critical Perspectives on Schooling and Fertility in the Developing World, edited by Caroline H. Bledsoe, John B. Casterline, Jennifer A. Johnson-Kuhn, and John G. Haaga. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fuller, Bruce, and Rubinson, Richard. 1992. The Political Construction of Education. New York: Praeger.

Ghorayshi, Parvin. 1993. “Gender Disparity in Education: A Challenge for Development.” International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 30:199–215.

Gök, Fatma. 1999. “75 Yılda İnsan Yetiştirme Eğ itim ve Devlet” [Human Development, Education and the State in 75 Years]. Pp. 1–8 in 75 Yılda Eğ itim, Tarih Vakfı Bilanço ‘98. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

Göle, Nilüfer. 1998. “Islamism, Feminism and Post- Modernism: Women’s Movements in Islamic Countries.” New Perspectives in Turkey 19:53–70.

Greenhalgh, Susan. 1985. “Sexual Stratification: The Other Side of ‘Growth with Equity’ in East Asia. Population Development Review 11:265–314.

Hill, M. Anne, and Elizabeth M. King. 1993. “Women’s Education in Developing Countries: An Overview.” Pp. 1–50 in Women’s Education in Developing Countries: Barriers, Benefits, and Policies,” edited by Elizabeth M. King and M. Anne Hill. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Horan, Patrick. 1978. “Is Status Attainment Research Atheoretical?” American Sociological Review 43:534–41.

Hortaçsu, Nuran. 1995. “Parents’ Education Levels, Parents’ Beliefs, and Child Outcomes.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 156:373–83.

Hyde, Karin A. L. 1993. “Sub-Saharan Africa.” Pp. 100–35 in Women’s Education in Developing Countries: Barriers, Benefits, and Policies,” edit-

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 41

ed by Elizabeth M. King and M. Anne Hill. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

İçduygu, Ahmet, David Romano, and İbrahim Sirkeci. 1999. “The Ethnic Question in an Environment of Insecurity: The Kurds in Turkey.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22:991–1010.

Inkeles, Alex, and David H. Smith. 1974. Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jencks, Christopher, Susan Bartlett, Mary Corcoran, James Gouse, David Eaglesfield, Gregory Jackson, Kent McClelland, Peter Meuser, Michael Olneck, Joseph Schwartz, Sherry Ward, and Jill Williams. 1979. Who Gets Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America. New York: Basic Books.

Kağıtçıbaşı, Çiğ dem. 1995. “Women’s Intra- Family Status in Turkey: Cross-Cultural Perspectives.” Pp. 51–69 in Women, Family, and Social Change in Turkey, edited by Ferhunde Özbay. Bangkok: UNESCO.

—-. 1999. “Türkiye’de Kadının Konumu: İnsanca Gelişme Düzeyi, Eğitim, İstihdam, Sağlık ve Doğurganlık” [Status of Woman in Turkey: Human Development Level, Education, Labor Force, Health and Fertility]. Pp. 255–66 in Bilanço 1923–1998: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Çevre, Tarih Vakfı. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1977. “Sex Roles and Social Change: A Comparative Appraisal of Turkey’s Women.” Signs 3:57–73.

—-. 1988. “Bargaining with Patriarchy.” Gender & Society 2:274–90.

Knodel, John, and Gavin W. Jones. 1996. “Post- Cairo Population Policy: Does Promoting Girls’ Schooling Miss the Mark?” Population and Development Review 22:683–702.

Lloyd, Cynthia B., and Ann K. Blanc. 1996. “Children’s Schooling in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Role of Fathers, Mothers, and Others.” Population and Development Review 22:265–98.

Lloyd, Cynthia, and Anastasia J. Gage-Brandon. 1994. “High Fertility and Children’s Schooling in Ghana: Sex Differences in Parental Contributions and Educational Outcomes.” Population Studies 48:293–306.

Marshall, Susan E. 1985. “Development, Dependence, and Gender Inequality in the Third World.” International Studies Quarterly 29:217–40.

Meyer, John W., and Michael T. Hannan. 1979. National Development and the World System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meyer, John W., Francisco O. Ramirez, and Yasemin N. Soysal. 1992. “World Expansion of Mass Education, 1870–1980.” Sociology of Education 65:128–49.

Michelson, Roslyn Arlin, Mokubung Nkomo, and Stephen Samuel Smith. 2001. “Education, Ethnicity, Gender, and Social Transformation in Israel and South Africa.” Comparative Education Review 45:1–35.

Özbay, Ferhunde. 1981. “The Impact of Education on Women in Rural and Urban Turkey.” Pp. 160–80 in Women in Turkish Society, edited by Nermin Abadan-Unat. Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

—-. 1985. “Transformation of the Socio-Economic Structure and Changing Family Functions in Rural Turkey”. Pp. 43–77 in Family in Turkish Society, edited by Türköz Erder. Ankara: Turkish Social Science Association.

—-. 1995. “Changes in Women’s Activities Both Inside and Outside the Home.” Pp. 89–111 in Women in Modern Turkish Society, edited by Şirin Tekeli. London: Zed Books.

Özyeğ in, Gül. 2001. Untidy Gender: Domestic Service in Turkey. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Parrish, William L., and Robert J. Willis. 1993. “Daughters, Education, and Family Budgets: Taiwan Experiences.” Journal of Human Resources 28:863–98.

Powell, Brian, and Lala Carr Steelman. 1990. “Beyond Sibship Size: Sibling Density, Sex Composition, and Educational Outcomes.” Social Forces 69:181–206.

Ramirez, Francisco O., and Jane Weiss. 1979. “The Political Incorporation of Women.” Pp. 238–49 in National Development and the World System, edited by John W. Meyer and Michael T. Hannan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Şahin, İsmet, and Yener Gülmez. 2000a. “Efficiency of Education: The Case in Eastern and South- Eastern Turkey.” Social Indicators Research 49:213–36.

—-. 2000b. “Social Sources of Failure in Education: The Case in East and Southeast Turkey. Social Indicators Research 49:83–113.

Schafer, Mark J. 1999. “International Nongovernmental Organizations and Third World Education in 1990: A Cross-National Study.” Sociology of Education 72:69–88.

Sewell, William, and Robert Hauser. 1975. Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achievement in the Early Career. New York: Academic Press.

State Institute of Statistics. 1987a. Census of Population, 1985. Ankara: DIE Publication.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

42 Rankin and Aytaç

—-. 1987b. National Education Statistics, General Secondary Education, 1985–1986. Ankara: DIE Publication.

—-. 1993a. Census of Population, 1990. Ankara: DIE Publication.

—-. 1993b. Provincial Statistics, 1985. Ankara: DIE Publication.

—-. 2005. Women’s Indicators and Statistics. Women’s Information Network. Available online at http://www.die.gov.tr/tkba/t103.xls

Steelman, Lala Carr, Brian Powell, Regina Werum, and Scott Carter. 2002. “Reconsidering the Effects of Sibling Configuration: Recent Advances and Challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 28:243–69.

Tansel, Ayşit. 2002. “Determinants of School Attainment of Boys and Girls in Turkey: Individual, Household, and Community Factors.” Economics of Education Review 21:455–70.

Timur, Serim. 1972. Türkiye’de Aile Yapısı [Family Structure in Turkey]. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Toprak, Binnaz. 1995. “Emancipated but Unliberated Women in Turkey: The Impact of Islam.” Pp. 39–49 in Women in Modern Turkish Society, edited by Şirin Tekeli. London: Zed Books.

Topses, Gürsen. 1999. “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eğiti- minin Gelişimi” [Development of Education During the Republican Era]. Pp. 9–22 in 75 Yılda Eğ itim, Tarih Vakfı Bilanço ’98. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

Treiman, Donald J. 1970. “Industrialization and Social Stratification.” Pp. 207–34 in Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970s, edited by Edward O. Laumann. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Tunalı, İnsan. 1996. “Education and Work: Experiences of 6–14-Year-Old Children in Turkey.” Pp. 107–142 in Education and the Labour Market in Turkey: Proceedings of a Seminar Held in Ankara, edited by Tuncer Bulutay. Ankara: State Institute of Statistics.

Türkdoğan, Orhan. 1992. “Türk Ailesinin Genel Yapısı” [The General Structure of Turkish Family]. Pp: 29–66 in Sosyo-Kültürel Değişme Sürecinde Türk Ailesi 1. Ankara: T. C. Başbakanlık Aile Araştırma Kurumu.

Ünal, Işıl, and Seçkin Özsoy. 1998. “Modern Türkiye’nin Sisyphos Miti: “Eğitimde Fırsat Eşitliğ i” [The Sisyphus Myth of Modern Turkey: Equal Opportunity in Education]. Pp. 39–72 in 75 Yılda Eğ itim, Tarih Vakfı Bilanço ‘98. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

UNESCO. 2004. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Millennium Development Goals. Available online at http://www.uis.unesco.org

UNICEF. 1994. The Progress of Nations. New York: UNICEF House.

—-. 1997. The State of the World’s Children 1997. New York: Oxford University Press.

United Nations Development Programme. 1995. Human Development Report 1995. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilensky, Harold L. 1968. “Women’s Work: Economic Growth, Ideology, and Structure.” Industrial Relations 7:235–48.

Wils, Annababette, and Anne Goujon. 1998. “Diffusion in Education in Six World Regions, 1960–90.” Population and Development Review 24:357–68.

Winter, Michael. 1984. “The Modernization of Education in Kemalist Turkey.” Pp. 183–94 in Atatürk and the Modernization of Turkey, edited by Jacob M. Landau. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wolfe, Barbara L., and Jere R. Behrman. 1984. “Who is Schooled in Developing Countries? The Role of Income, Parental Schooling, Sex, Residence and Family Size.” Economics of Education Review 3:231–45.

Wood, Mary M., William W. Swan, and Norman J. Wood. 1986. “Supply and Demand Factors Influencing the Educational Dropout Rate in Africa and Asia.” International Education 15:37–44.

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gender Inequality in Schooling in Turkey 43

Bruce H. Rankin, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey. His main fields of interest are educational sociology, sociology of youth, urban poverty, and stratification. His current work is on educational gender inequality, the social impacts of economic crises, and welfare reform and family well-being.

Işık A. Aytaç, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Her main fields of interest are stratification, work and family, and aging. She is currently studying the impact of the Turkish economic crisis on work and family life.

We thank the Turkish Government Planning Office and the State Institute of Statistics for providing the data on which this article was based. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 16, 2004. Address all correspondence to Bruce Rankin, Department of Sociology, Koç University, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, Sar›yer, Istanbul, 34450 Turkey; e-mail: [email protected].

Delivered by Ingenta to : American Sociological Association

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:41:50

at LEHMAN COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 17, 2016soe.sagepub.comDownloaded from