Rural Revitalization and the Village Institutes Experience in Turkey (1940-1954)

This research evaluate on the Village Institutes experience in Turkey from the early 1940s to the 1950s. There is now a new interest in the organization and functioning of the “Village Institutes” which were in operation in Turkey. This study purpose is to describe how the Village Institutes were created, how they were organized and functioned, and what were the results of this experiment partly built on the precedent of the urban normal schools. Finally, a new theoretical interpretation is offered within a critique of existing, widely-held explanations that have dominated the theoretical literature on the issue for so long.


Introduction
After Turkish National Movement, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk transformed the core of the last great empire into a modern state.The Turkish Revolution of the 1920's and 1930's may well be considered the most wonderful revolution of modern periods.In that time, Turkish intellectuals were awakened to the problems of rural Anatolia experiences.(Makal, 2005: 52) As early as 1920 when Ataturk was thought merely a rebellious general.He started propagating the notion of a special educational program for the Turkish villages.(Stone, 1974: 419) In 1922 Ataturk asserted that the educational policy of the country must be the education of the peasant.At last, in I923, the establishment of the Republic provided conditions in which a development of education might really be expected.(Verschoyle, 1950:60) Ataturk also indicated the need to place both primary and secondary education under the authority of the Ministry of Education.Between 1923 and1933, the number of normal schools on elementary level, had risen from twenty to only twenty -five, and the total number of teachers from 4.8 thousand to nineteen thousand.Over 80 per cent of the population was, and is, contained in some 40.000villages, 32.000 of which comprise under 400 people each, with less than 150 inhabitants in each of 16.000 villages.At that time there were in all about 3,200 primary schools, with 5.600 primary teachers.Thus, the ultimate goal must have appeared almost impossibly distant.(Verschoyle, 1950:60) In that case, Turkish leaders have struggled with the problem of rural revitalization.After considerable debate, their concern led to a government-sponsored program of Village Institutes designed to improve the Anatolian peasant.Although in 1948 this program was abandoned by the ruling Republican People's Party, the debate over the value of the Village Institutes has continued.This article seeks to examine the debate ganization and which has followed their demise.(Stone, 1974: 419

General Background of The Village Institutes
The establishment of the Republic procured conditions in which a development of education might really be expected.At last, in 1927, Out of a population of 14 million, only a little more than 1 million could read.Thus, the ultimate goal must have appeared almost impossibly distant.
In I93I, the third congress of the People's Party adopted an educational programme of eight points: The foundation stone of our educational policy is the removal of ignorance.
Our aim is to raise strong republican, patriotic, and worthy citizens.

Both the bodily and mental development of our children shall be inspired by our glorious history.
Education must equip the citizen for material success in life.
Education shall be nationalistic and patriotic, free from all superstition and foreign ideas.Sympathetic care of the pupil shall be united with firm discipline and moral teaching.
Great importance shall be attached to Turkish history.
In every village there shall be a primary school, which shall include in its curriculum the teaching of hygiene and of appropriate agricultural and technical subjects.(Verschoyle, 1950: 60) Turkish intellectuals feel that such organizations could be helpful to those "new countries" which have to create from nothing the whole system of elementary education in regions which are dominantly rural.Especially, they were awakened to the problems of rural Anatolia experiences during World War I. (Öztürk, 1996: 125) Some of them were to modernize the social relations, to bring an end to poverty and ignorance among the peasants, to create peasant intellectuals, to increase agricultural productivity and to help spread the Kemalist Revolution in the countryside.(Karaömerlioğlu, 1998: 47) In addition, the overall economic conditions, particularly in agriculture, continued to deteriorate owing to the global negativ e effects of the Great Depression.(Thornburg, 1949:359) At that time, it had not been for the poor financial structure mechanization might have been a solution to improve agricultural production.In I936 Hakkı Tonguc, the Director General of Primary Education, was carrying out a tour of inspection in the province of Kayseri.(Verschoyle, 1950:  There were many expectations from these institutions for the development of rural Turkey.(Uzman, 2013: 197) The teacher's duties to the community come under two headings: his duty to the school itself, and his duty to village life.One of the secrets of success of the village institute system is that it was prepared especially to suit national needs, and not just copied from training methods employed in any other country, in the realization from the first that an entirely new type of teacher and a new method of training were alike necessary.(Kaya, 1984: 193) For many, it was their first contact with peasents.Some of them were to modernize the social relations, to bring an end to poverty and ignorance among the peasants, to create peasant intellectuals, to increase agricultural productivity and to help spread the Kemalist Revolution in the countryside.(Karaömerlioğlu, 1998: 47) Though there was a consensus in the beginning among the ruling circles as to what should be the goals of the Institutes, the actual historical experience turned out to be extremely controversial.The Village Institutes became one of the major foci of political and ideological debate in Turkey, especially in the 1950s and the early 1960s.(Szyliowicz,1966: 272-273)

Institute Students
By I935, when the number of primary schools had risen only to 5,000, with 7,000 teachers and 370,000 pupils, it had become clear that some entirely new method of educational expansion was necessary if the country were ever to be properly equipped with teachers and schools.(DİE,1967: 32-35) Fortunately for Turkey, a man with the necessary organizing ability, drive, and personality was at hand to launch what was really a revolutionary scheme.This scheme is undoubtedly one of the most important developments in the country.Candidates for admission to the village institutes are chosen by examination from those who have completed the five-year course at a primary school in the area covered by the institute, the age limits being 12-16 years.(Tonguç, 1939  In the early days of the institutes primary schools were very rare, and entrance was by nomination.The number of students enrolled (in parentheses the number of women included in the total) was 2,490 (235) in the first year.As can be understood from the table, it is noteworthy that there is a steady increase in the number of students, both in the number of institutes opened and in the number of students, from the establishment process to the closing process of the institutes.The highest number was 14,236 between 1945-1946, and

Table 2. Located production units in the countryside
60-61) The Village Institutes embody an educational attempt made in Turkey between 1937 and the mid-1940s to transform the Turkish countryside.Two years later Hakkı Tonguç was ready to develop his scheme into the much more comprehensive design for training primary teachers, which is embodied in the village institutes.(Akyüz, 2001: 353-355) Officially, it began in 1940 although experimental studies started in 1937.The Institutes continued until early 1950s, but the original phase of the Village Institutes ended in 1946 with the withdrawal of Hasan Ali Yücel from the Ministry of Education and Hakkı Tonguç.A new interest in the organization and functioning of the "Village Institutes" which were in operation in Turkey between 1940 and 1950.
: I) There were fourteen Institutes the first year, 18, in 1943, twenty in 1944, and 21 in 1948 until the Institutes were established.
Name of the Institute / CityEstablishment Years Field of the Institute 1.Çifteler-Eskişehir 1937 Afy on, Kütahya, Uşak, Konya 2.Kızılçullu-İzmir 1937 Manisa, Denizli, Aydın 3.Kepirtepe-Kırklareli (Lüleburgaz) 1938 Edirne, Tekirdağ 4.Gölköy -Kastamonu 1939 Çankırı, Çorum, Zonguldak, Sinop 5.Düziçi-Adana (Haruniye) 1940 Maraş, Gaziantep 6.Arifiy e-Kocaeli (İzmit) 1940 Bursa, Bilecik, İstanbul, Bolu 7-Diy arbakır (Ergani) 1944 Urfa, Mardin, Bitlis 21.Ernis-Van 1948 Hakkâri Source: (Türkoğlu, 2005:176-177) the lowest between 5371 in 1940.The number of diplomas awarded each year varied from a low of 103 to a high of2,269 in 1948-1949.The total of diplomas given was 16,894.During the first five years the Institutes had built more than 300 buildings such as dormitories, refectories, kitchens, workshops, warehouses, garages, class-rooms, etc.They had installed electricity in sixteen of their twenty -one centers.By the time 1952, 21 institutes, 17,341 teachers, and 1348 health officers had graduated to the rural development as a graduate, through the institutes, with a remarkable progress in the schooling process and education-training struggle in the villages.The CurriculumIn the first three years(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943) there was no definite curriculum in the Institutes.The teachers received only general instruc-tions and some examples of programs in their specialty , but the details of the curriculum were left mostly to their initiative.The amount of time allotted to each branch per semester was 114 hours for general educa-tion; 58 hours for agriculture; and 58 hours for technology.After three years a detailed curriculum was elaborated assigning a specific number of hours per year for each subject.Given below is the total number of hours for the five years showing the relative importance attributed to the different subjects.(Kaya,1984: 194)  The old proportion was maintained for the three great branches: General Education (50 per cent); Agriculture (25 percent); Technology (25 percent).The following subjects were taught under General Education (Culture): Turkish, 736 hours in 5 years; History, 328; Geography, 236; Civil Education, 92; Mathematics, 598; Physics, 276; Chemistry, 184; Biology, 368; Foreign Language, 414; Penmanship, 92; Painting, 214; Physical Education and National Folklore, 184; Music-instrumental and vocal, 460; Military training, 368; Rural Economics and Cooperative Organization, 46.Greatest importance was allotted to Mathematics and Foreign Language among the variety of subjects in this curriculum.(Tonguç,1947: 561-562) In Agriculture (with some local variants the following subjects were taught: field-work, industrial cultures, zootechnology aviculture, apiculture, silk worm culture, fishing and pisciculture.Also taught were technology: Iron work, wood work-masonry-mechanics, elements of electricity, and specialties for women in field and housework, child-rearing and others.(Vexliardand Aytaç, 1964:44-45) Education For Production The main function of the village institute is to train the primary teacher.Hitherto the training course has covered five years, with a nominal 44-hour week and six weeks' holiday in the year, but it is now proposed to extend it to six years.Half of the working hours are spent on purely practical subjects, equally divided between agriculture and, for the boys, building,