Abstract
This research examines teachers’ perspectives on factors shaping access to education. Using a qualitative research design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 teachers working in different school types, and data were analysed thematically. Findings are organised under five themes. Regarding social structure, fragmented or inadequately supported families in rural areas adversely affected educational access, whilst parental education level and family awareness emerged as determining factors in urban centres. Socioeconomic status proved decisive in accessing basic needs and technology; children from low-income families were disadvantaged, whereas those from high-income families accessed additional resources. Cultural factors, particularly language differences, gender roles, and traditional structures, restricted girls’ educational access. Physical infrastructure revealed equipment deficiencies and transportation problems in rural areas, whilst urban centres faced overcrowded classrooms and inadequate materials. Although legal regulations safeguard the right to education, various implementation challenges persist in practice.
Keywords
Introduction
The right to education guarantees that individuals have access to quality and accessible education without experiencing any discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, social class, or other factors. This right ensures that individuals can access the quality education necessary to maximise their abilities and potential (Kesbiç et al., 2024). The right to education is a fundamental human right, and every individual should benefit from this right equally. The right to education has been stipulated in numerous international instruments and enshrined through both legally binding and non-binding provisions. In this context, states have responsibilities to respect, enable, and fulfil the right to education for all individuals (Baykara Özaydınlık, 2021). The ability of all individuals to benefit from the right to education without being subjected to any form of marginalisation is only possible through the unconditional and sustainable provision of access to education.
Access to education is one of the concepts that refers to the equal provision of learning opportunities to all individuals and is recognised by contemporary education systems as a fundamental human right (UNESCO, 2020). The ability of students to benefit from education, regardless of their socioeconomic background, geographical location, cultural background, gender, or special needs, is regarded as a prerequisite for both social justice and sustainable development (Ainscow, 2020; World Bank, 2018). However, as in many countries, access to education in Turkey continues to be one of the areas where inequalities are most visible due to structural and environmental factors. This situation becomes particularly pronounced when the participation of disadvantaged groups in educational opportunities is concerned (Tunca et al., 2022).
In the literature, factors shaping access to education are generally categorised as socioeconomic, geographical, school- and teacher-related, family and societal expectations, and political-administrative factors (Bourdieu, 1986; Reay, 2004). Whilst economic deprivation limits families’ access to educational resources, spatial inequalities in rural areas directly affect students’ school attendance and access to schooling (UNICEF, 2019). School-based factors such as physical facilities, access to materials, class sizes, and teacher competencies are also among the significant variables that determine students’ access to education and their learning experiences (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The Turkish context indicates that socioeconomic factors are decisive for access to education (Altıparmak & Demircan, 2021; Güneş, 2020), and that regional and geographical disparities emerge in association with socioeconomic, sociocultural, and political factors (Güngör & Akçay Güngör, 2023; Ilgar, 2023). During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital and technological inequalities (internet access, hardware provision, and participation-related problems) became more visible, and learning losses were reported (Demir et al., 2021; Işık & Bahat, 2021; Nerse, 2020; Önder, 2022). For migrant and refugee children, linguistic, economic, and structural problems hinder access to education (Büyükhan & Karagöl, 2021; Erol et al., 2021; Gülerce et al., 2022; Karakaya & Karakaya, 2021; Kırnık, 2021; Topaloğlu & Özdemir, 2020), whilst in rural areas and in the context of transported and boarding education, challenges related to transportation, family separation, and access to school facilities are prominent (Bayar & Özsalih, 2021; Demirel & Kurt, 2021; Tümkaya & Ulum, 2020; Yeşilkuş, 2023). Gender (Çolak & Tüzel İşeri, 2022), along with learners with special needs and other disadvantaged groups (Bahçeci, 2023; Binbir & Arastaman, 2024; Gökçe & Şahin Fırat, 2024), is also identified as a significant domain of inequality in access to education. The international literature indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed persistent inequalities in access to technology and educational outcomes across K-12 schooling, deepened digital inequities, and necessitated equitable remote-learning decisions (Anthony & Miller, 2024; Miller & Liu, 2023). During the pandemic, minority students and families living in urban areas experienced substantial burdens, with serious challenges related to attendance and the school environment (Childs et al., 2023). Although the concept of digital equity is widely used in educational policy discourse, its meaning often remains unclear, and existing definitions are generally grounded in a deficit model (Luo & Liu, 2025). In the context of the urban-rural divide, integrating digital technologies into education is argued to offer new opportunities to address regional inequalities (S. Liu, 2025). School choice policies and racial inequities have also emerged as a significant problem area, with evidence indicating that such policies may inadvertently perpetuate racial othering (French, 2025). Inclusive, equity-oriented leadership and bias-reduction efforts have been found to exert positive effects on academic achievement and educational justice (Z. Liu, 2025). With regard to refugee children, community-based after-school programmes appear effective in providing academic and socio-emotional support (Damoah et al., 2026). Growing inequality in education is identified as an urgent problem across many national systems; moreover, young people from diverse social backgrounds are seen to interpret these inequalities through discourses of meritocracy and social mobility, with neoliberal ideology shaping these perceptions (Chan & Tang, 2025). In this context, it would not be erroneous to state that the inclusiveness of an education system is one of the fundamental variables that safeguards access to education.
Inclusive education is an educational process that aims to increase every child’s access to and participation in education in accordance with their personal, developmental, and cultural characteristics, needs, economic status, gender, ethnicity, and disability status, whilst also aiming to reduce potential discrimination (UNICEF, 2014). Inclusive education can be expressed as the process of strengthening the education system’s ability to reach all students. According to another perspective, inclusive education is a process that offers every school-age child the opportunity to receive quality education of equal standard in the educational environment. This process recognises children’s right to benefit equally from education in mainstream classrooms alongside their peers (Mariga et al., 2014). In line with these considerations, full access to education must be ensured for all individuals, regardless of characteristics such as gender, family structure, living environment, economic level, language, belief, and tradition. The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey emphasises that all individuals have an unconditional right to education (Official Gazette, 1982). This article of the Constitution not only establishes a strong legal foundation for inclusiveness in education but also emphasises that all individuals have equal right to education. The right of access to education encompasses children’s physical access to school, the ability of disadvantaged children to continue their education, children’s optimal utilisation of educational opportunities, and the ability of families with low economic status to send their children to school (Yılmaz, 2016). Access to inclusive and quality education involves reducing the number of children excluded from society, culture, and curriculum; ensuring the participation of such children in education; and being able to respond to children’s differences by fundamentally restructuring the culture, policies, and practices in schools (Baykara Özaydınlık, 2021). The Ministry of National Education has responsibilities such as developing, implementing, and continuously evaluating education policies in order to provide equal opportunities for everyone in education at the point of educational access. In the context of access to education, ensuring that all disadvantaged students can access school unconditionally is the most fundamental basis of inclusive education. Within the scope of disadvantaged students, female students, minority students who have had to settle in another country for various reasons, refugees, asylum seekers, migrant students, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, at-risk students, and students affected by natural disasters can be counted. The optimal utilisation of the right of access to education and physical access to education for students within this scope must be guaranteed by the social state.
Whilst policies implemented and legal regulations enacted in relation to inclusive education provide positive benefits, certain problems arise in inclusive education practices (Şimşek, 2023). Foremost amongst these problems is the issue of access to education. Inclusiveness of access to education means that all students have equal opportunities to access quality education. In a society where all students can access education equally, it becomes possible to speak of the inclusiveness of the education system in all its aspects. Quality education begins with ensuring all children’s access to formal educational institutions. If there are children in an education system who cannot access school, the right to education cannot be fully realised, regardless of how rich the content provided by good teachers may be. Therefore, ensuring that all children have access to education is the primary condition (Kesbiç et al., 2024).
In the Education Reform Initiative (ERG) Education Monitoring Report by Kesbiç et al. (2024), the 2023 to 2024 academic year in Turkey was evaluated, and it was determined that 3.9% of children who should be attending school, approximately 612,814 children, were not attending school. Of these children, 53.6% were boys and 46.4% were girls. In the context of inclusive education, it is inconceivable that even a single student should be unable to benefit from the right to education. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the underlying causes of the problem of out-of-school children and to produce urgent solutions to these problems. In the 2023 to 2024 academic year, when the number of out-of-school children in Turkey reached its highest level in the last 3 years, it is necessary to develop certain social policies that prioritise keeping all children within the education system (Kesbiç et al., 2024).
Teachers, as implementers of the education system and direct observers of classroom experiences, are the stakeholders who can most closely observe the barriers affecting students’ access to education. Therefore, teachers’ views provide an indispensable data source for understanding the nature of inequalities experienced in access to education and developing solution proposals (Cologon, 2019). Furthermore, the experiences teachers acquire in different socioeconomic and cultural contexts serve as an important guide for policymakers and education administrators.
Research Objective
This research examines teachers’ perspectives on the factors shaping access to education. To achieve this aim, the following questions will be addressed:
How do teachers evaluate the impact of students’ social structures on their access to education?
How do teachers evaluate the influence of students’ socioeconomic status on their access to education?
How do teachers evaluate the role of students’ cultural structures in shaping access to education?
How do teachers evaluate the physical conditions and facilities of their schools in the context of access to education?
What are teachers’ views on legal regulations in the context of access to education?
Method
Research Design
This study employed a basic qualitative research design. Qualitative research entails systematic observation and detailed analysis of phenomena occurring in natural settings, whilst acknowledging the complexity inherent in their nature (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). According to Merriam (2009), the purpose of basic qualitative research is to understand how individuals interpret their experiences, construct their worlds, and attribute meaning to those experiences. Within this framework, the present study explores and analyses teachers’ perspectives on the factors shaping access to education in depth.
Participants
The participant group for this research comprises primary, secondary, and high school teachers working in state schools located in rural areas and urban centres affiliated with the Ministry of National Education in a province in northern Turkey. The schools in which the research was conducted were selected as two contrasting extremes in rural and urban areas using deviant case sampling, one of the purposive sampling methods. Deviant case sampling provides richer data compared to normal conditions and enables a considerably deep and detailed understanding of the research (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2021). The participant group was selected using maximum variation sampling, another purposive sampling method. The primary aim of maximum variation sampling is to ensure the broadest possible representation of individuals who can examine the research problem from different perspectives. In other words, within a participant group formed on the basis of diversity, the objective is to identify common or shared elements amongst different situations. In this way, a comprehensive and broad perspective is established by revealing various aspects of the problem (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2021). In this context, the participant group consists of 33 teachers in total: five primary, seven secondary, and five high school teachers working in rural areas, and six primary, five secondary, and five high school teachers working in urban centres. The demographic information of the participant group is presented in Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants.
Data Collection Tool
Data were collected using a semi-structured interview form developed specifically for this study. In designing the instrument, an extensive review of the literature was conducted, and the draft questions were evaluated by two experts in Curriculum and Instruction to ensure alignment with the research objectives. Based on their feedback, the interview form was finalised. To further validate the instrument, pilot interviews were conducted with three teachers outside the study sample, and necessary revisions were made prior to the main application.
Data Collection Process
Appointments were arranged with selected teachers, and face-to-face interviews were conducted at predetermined times and locations. Prior to each interview, participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the study and provided written informed consent. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ permission and lasted between 20 and 30 min.
Data Analysis
The research data were analysed in line with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis is the process of identifying recurring, meaningful themes within qualitative data (Çarıkcı et al., 2024). Accordingly, the interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts were carefully reviewed by the researchers. To become familiar with the dataset, the researchers read the transcripts several times. Subsequently, a coding framework developed on the basis of interview questions informed by the relevant literature was employed, and initial coding was conducted across all transcripts. The resulting codes were grouped under broader themes to ensure conceptual clarity. To enhance the validity of the analysis, the dataset was also independently coded by a field expert, and the results were compared. In relation to the research questions and the central phenomenon, a hierarchical code-subcode structure was developed. The findings are reported within this framework. To ensure anonymity during reporting, teachers were assigned codes: RT1, RT2, RT3, etc. for rural teachers, and UT1, UT2, UT3, etc. for urban teachers. These codes were used consistently in both the tables and the illustrative quotations.
Reliability and Ethics
To enhance the reliability of the study, the dataset was independently coded by two researchers conducting the study, and inter-rater reliability was calculated. The coding units were compared, and overlapping and differing codes were identified. Following this process, a reliability coefficient of 0.80 was obtained, which is considered acceptable according to the threshold value proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994).
Within the scope of the study’s trustworthiness and ethical considerations, the aim was to ensure credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. To enhance credibility, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participating teachers. The semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers was reviewed by field experts and revised in line with feedback from programme development specialists. With regard to transferability, the schools in which the study was conducted were selected through deviant case sampling, a purposive sampling method, while participating teachers were selected using maximum variation sampling, also within a purposive framework. Teachers’ statements were presented in the Findings section through direct quotations. To ensure confirmability, opinions and suggestions were sought from programme development experts who were not involved in the study. To assess dependability, a pilot implementation was carried out with programme-implementing teachers who were not included in the main study, and consistency was sought accordingly. Throughout all stages of the research, strict adherence was maintained to the “Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions.” Prior to conducting the study, ethical approval was obtained from each of the universities where the data were collected and from the Anadolu University Research Ethics Committee.
Findings
The analyses conducted in the research yielded the following themes: “the impact of social structure on access to education,” “the impact of socioeconomic status on access to education,” “the impact of cultural structure on access to education,” “physical structure and facilities of schools on access to education,” and “legal regulations on access to education.” The identified themes and the code and subcode model pertaining to these themes are presented in this section.
The Impact of Social Structure on Access to Education
The code-subcode model related to the theme “the impact of social structure on access to education” is presented in Table 2.
The Impact of Social Structure on Access to Education.
RT11, a teacher working in a rural area, highlighted the influence of social structure on access to education, stating: “I have observed the significant positive impact of parents who are attentive, engaged, and financially secure.” RT10 reinforced this point: “They live in rural areas and do not have the same opportunities as students in urban centres.” RT16 noted that “our students with strained family ties are above average,” whereas RT12 stressed that “at a minimum, family structure determines the type of school a child will attend.” UT13, who works in an urban centre, described the impact of social structure on access to education as follows: “If the family structure and the environment in which the student lives are culturally enriched, the student's access to education can be elevated to a higher level.” UT14, teaching in an urban centre, remarked: “Even in 2025, there are still families who refuse to allow their children - particularly girls - to pursue education beyond high school.” UT10 emphasised that “we hear there are difficulties with participation, especially in provincial and village schools,” whereas UT3 stated that “family structure can be said to be the primary and most important factor in access to education.” UT15 supported this by noting that “peer group, the neighbourhood in which they live, and the city have a direct impact.”
The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Access to Education
The code-subcode model related to the theme “the impact of socioeconomic status on access to education” is presented in Table 3.
The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Access to Education.
RT1, who works in rural areas, emphasised the impact of economic status on access to education, stating, “Students with financial difficulties may fall behind,” whilst RT9 explained: “During the pandemic, many of our students lacked internet access, tablets, or computers at home.” RT13 explained that “students from low socio-economic backgrounds cannot have very strong motivation,” whereas RT2 emphasised that “participation in education increases for children whose economic freedom is secured.” RT4 added that “because they feel happier, better, and more complete, their education and training becomes more successful.” In urban areas, UT6 highlighted the impact of socioeconomic status on access to education, stating, “We are facing a major problem in obtaining educational materials,” whilst UT15 noted: “Children from families with limited financial resources are often compelled to enter the workforce at an early age.” UT11 noted that “they can be deprived of things such as nutrition,” while UT5 stated, “I think that as the economic level rises, access to education and its diversity increase.” UT8 reported that “because it is within the scope of transported education, transport and meal costs are covered by the state,” whereas UT16 added that “they may have less access to resources such as specialised educational materials, extracurricular activities, and additional support outside school.”
The Impact of Cultural Structure on Access to Education
The code-subcode model related to the theme “the impact of cultural structure on access to education” is presented in Table 4.
The Impact of Cultural Structure on Access to Education.
RT7, a rural teacher, highlighted cultural barriers, stating, “Prevailing gender norms restrict girls' opportunities to access education,” whilst RT6 emphasised, “Foreign students experience significant difficulties in both accessing and internalising education.” RT2 explained that “we can say that culture is a bridge and a factor in access to education,” while RT5 emphasised that “a child who does not know their language well cannot access education clearly.” RT13 reported that “students with weak cultural foundations have weaker curiosity and desire to learn,” whereas RT9 stressed that “tolerance, sharing, solidarity. . . create positive reflections.” In the urban centre, UT15 emphasised the impact of cultural structure on access to education, stating, “I believe that cultural structure directly affects the process of sending girls to school,” whilst UT9, teaching in an urban centre, explained: “Certain families consider formal schooling incompatible with their cultural beliefs and traditions.” UT16 noted that “cultural diversity can create certain challenges in educational settings,” while UT7 emphasised, “we have difficulties with students who do not know the language. We have difficulties in communication.” UT8 reported that “because there are no students with a different faith, cultural structures are not a barrier to access to education,” whereas UT12 stated that “a student studying in the Aegean Region does not receive the same education as one in Eastern Anatolia.”
Physical Structure and Facilities of Schools on Access to Education
The code-subcode model related to the theme “physical structure and facilities of schools on access to education” is presented in Table 5.
Physical Structure and Facilities of Schools on Access to Education.
RT13, who works in a rural area, reported that the school’s physical structure and facilities hinder access to education, stating, “The school's structure does not support multiple intelligences.” RT12 stated, “we do not feel a lack of any of the basic needs.” RT3 noted “situations such as rural students not having the means to travel to and from school. . ..” UT11, working in an urban centre, stressed the inadequacy of school facilities: “We are currently educating 600 students in a building designed for only 250-300.” UT3, by contrast, stated: “If the number of classrooms is increased, more children will have access to education.” UT2 noted that “access to authentic materials is somewhat difficult,” while UT10 emphasised that “technological tools need to be updated.” UT6 added, “there is a ramp for students with disabilities. The toilets need to be improved.”
Legal Regulations on Access to Education
The code-subcode model related to the theme “legal regulations on access to education” is presented in Table 6.
Legal Regulations on Access to Education.
RT6, who works in rural areas, stated, “Legal regulations require students to attend school,” whilst RT4 stated, “Although our Constitution declares that all children have the right to equal education, this right is not being fully realised in practice.” RT13 emphasised that “there should be preventive legal measures regarding child neglect and abuse,” while RT4 stated that “our Constitution says all children will be educated equally, but this is not being realised.” RT14 reported, “I think our state has done what it can in terms of legal regulation,” whereas RT12 stated, “I do not think 12 years of compulsory education is necessary.” In the urban centre, UT16 stated, “In the context of access to education, laws guarantee students' right to education,” whilst UT4 said, “I think that individuals in need of special education cannot participate in schooling to a sufficient extent.” UT9 stated that “sanctions must also be enforced,” while UT2 reported that “there is a lack of clarity about placing children in classes appropriate to their level.” UT15 noted, “I think compulsory education is challenging for some individuals,” whereas UT5 emphasised, “transported education is not the solution. Education should go to rural areas.”
Conclusion, Discussion, and Recommendations
The primary aim of this study is to examine teachers’ perspectives on the factors shaping access to education. In line with this aim, findings were obtained from a total of 33 teachers working in rural and urban areas under the following themes: the impact of social structure on access to education, the impact of socioeconomic status on access to education, the impact of cultural structure on access to education, the impact of schools’ physical structure and facilities on access to education, and legal regulations regarding access to education. The findings obtained are discussed under the relevant headings.
The Impact of Social Structure on Access to Education
The research findings indicate that the most significant factors affecting access to education in rural areas are family configurations, economic and cultural conditions, and geographical as well as social circumstances. These findings align with UNESCO’s (2020) inclusive education report, which underscores the critical role of family support in fostering educational achievement, and can be interpreted through the lens of social capital theory, which emphasises the influence of cultural capital on shaping educational engagement (Coleman et al., 1966). A stable and supportive family structure contributes positively to education, whilst fragmented or weak family structures have negative effects on access to education. These findings are echoed in Dinçer and Uysal’s (2010) study on educational inequalities in Turkey.
Teachers reported that economic deprivation hinders students’ ability to remain in school, secure transport, and obtain basic learning materials. In addition, cultural norms and role models within society were found to shape students’ attitudes towards education. A comprehensive study by Showalter et al. (2023) likewise highlights that economic barriers constitute the primary constraint on educational access in rural settings. Furthermore, community-based solidarity shaped by rural living conditions was reported to have ambivalent effects, at times supporting but also at times limiting students’ access. Finally, factors such as geographical distance, seasonal conditions, and transport difficulties consistently emerged as significant barriers impeding equal access to education.
In urban centres, the educational level of parents, family attitudes, and awareness are key factors in children’s access to education. The social and cultural structure of families can exert both positive and negative influences: some families adapt to contemporary expectations, whilst others adhere to traditional norms and restrict their children’s educational continuation. Environmental conditions such as neighbourhood characteristics and community structures also shape children’s attitudes towards schooling. Teachers further noted that under certain socioeconomic conditions, children are compelled to work outside school, and that economic deprivation directly undermines access to education. This finding can be interpreted through Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of cultural capital, whereby the advantages afforded by educated families create marked differences in children’s educational trajectories. Consistent with this, Epstein (2018) observed that family support and parental education levels significantly influence academic achievement and school attendance.
The study also highlights the role of gender norms, with family pressure constituting a substantial barrier to girls’ access to education. Some parents consider it inappropriate for daughters to pursue education beyond a certain level. National statistics reinforce this finding: according to 2023 data from the Turkish Statistical Institute, education rates for girls in Eastern and South-eastern Anatolia remain significantly lower (TÜİK, 2024). Similarly, UNESCO (2020) noted that traditional values and gender norms in rural areas represent a major obstacle to girls’ education. In addition, peer relationships and social interactions were reported as influential: positive peer environments encourage educational engagement, whilst negative peer influences hinder access.
In addition to the present findings, international trends concerning the relationship between social structure and access to education should also be considered in this discussion. First, structured participation programmes designed to strengthen school-family partnerships are known to reduce educational disengagement among disadvantaged families and to increase school attendance rates (Jeynes, 2012). In this context, the growing prevalence of digital communication channels (mobile applications, SMS notification systems, and parent portals) offers new opportunities to facilitate the participation of families with low levels of education in school processes (Kraft & Rogers, 2015). Second, community-based mentoring programmes aimed at reducing gender inequality, together with scholarship schemes for girls, appear to yield effective outcomes in counterbalancing the adverse effects of family pressure (Unterhalter, 2014). According to the World Bank’s (2018) comprehensive review, targeted community interventions that provide educational scholarships for girls -consistent with the trends identified in this study- significantly increase girls’ school retention in the Middle East and South Asia. Adapting such good practices to Turkey’s rural regions could play a decisive role in overcoming barriers rooted in social structure.
The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Access to Education
Teachers emphasise that economic status serves as a primary determinant of access to education in rural areas. Students from low-income households face difficulties in meeting basic needs and accessing technology. By contrast, children from wealthier families benefit from supplementary resources, private schooling, and cultural experiences, which confer psychological and social advantages. Lareau (2011) states that families with high socioeconomic status are able to provide their children with more books, access to technology, and cultural experiences, which in turn provide significant advantages in terms of access to information. However, findings also indicate that financial capital alone is insufficient. The ways in which families use their resources, together with parental awareness, are equally decisive. According to the OECD (2018) report, socioeconomic status strongly correlates with educational achievement, and in Turkey this relationship is stronger than in most OECD countries.
In urban centres, teachers reported that socioeconomic status influences access to technology-based learning. Students often lack tablets, computers, and software needed for advanced coursework, and private tutoring is frequently used to compensate for these deficiencies. This pattern became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic (Avcı & Akdeniz, 2021).
At the same time, emerging trends in access to education in rural areas should be considered in light of the rapid diffusion of digital technologies. The expansion of mobile internet infrastructure and the spread of low-cost smart devices are creating new opportunities for learners who previously could not access quality education due to geographical barriers. In this context, UNESCO (2023) emphasises in its global report on the role of digital technologies in education that, if connectivity problems are overcome, remote-learning tools can significantly increase access to education in rural regions. However, realising this potential requires more than device provision alone; enabling conditions such as reliable internet infrastructure, digital literacy training, and strengthened teacher capacity must also be ensured (Warschauer & Xu, 2019).
Teachers emphasised the impact of students’ living conditions -including access to private rooms, adequate nutrition, and appropriate clothing- on educational access. Pereira (2011) states that economic inequalities affect not only school resources but also students’ level of preparedness for school. As families’ socioeconomic status increases, children’s access to education improves, they become more self-confident, and they gain easier access to information. Students with sufficient financial resources feel more capable of coping with educational challenges, which positively affects their motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Extant research consistently highlights the strong link between students’ living conditions, fulfilment of basic needs (nutrition, clothing, housing), and educational outcomes (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). According to Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs theory, individuals cannot focus on higher-level cognitive processes unless their basic needs are met. A meta-analysis by Bradley and Corwyn (2002) further demonstrated that children with private rooms achieved superior learning outcomes, as such environments not only provide favourable learning conditions but also promote self-confidence and autonomy.
The study emphasised that state support and school transport positively affect students’ access to education, highlighting the importance of public policies in compensating for socioeconomic inequalities. Previous research demonstrates that school infrastructure improvements and nutrition support programmes increase attendance rates and enhance learning outcomes (Duflo, 2001; Kremer & Vermeersch, 2005). Transport-based education programmes offer important opportunities, particularly for students living in rural areas, by enabling them to access higher-quality educational environments (Howley et al., 2011). However, criticisms remain that long travel times lead to physical and psychological fatigue, limiting students’ participation in extracurricular and social activities (C. R. Berry & West, 2010).
Teachers stated that the lack of equipment and educational materials in schools is a significant problem, posing challenges for both teachers and students. This deficiency negatively affects not only the quality of the teaching process but also teacher and student motivation (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Marzano (2003) emphasises that appropriate tools and materials are critical for effective teaching and that their absence restricts teachers’ pedagogical approaches.
Another recurring finding is the disparity between private and public schools. Private schools possess abundant resources - such as modern materials, equipment, and digital tools - whilst students from low-income families often attend under-resourced public schools. This inequality is consistent with the “Education Monitoring Report 2020: Students and Access to Education” (Ergün & Arık, 2020). Ball (2003) notes that whilst school choice appears to be a freedom granted to families, in practice, socioeconomic status is the determining factor, thereby deepening educational stratification.
Economic hardship also compels families to direct their children into the labour market at an early age. In some households, particularly those engaged in livestock farming, parents encourage children to continue the family profession rather than pursue education. Research demonstrates that economic difficulties underpin such decisions (Basu & Van, 1998), particularly in the livestock sector where both labour requirements and traditional expectations favour occupational continuity (Edmonds & Pavcnik, 2005). Short-term economic needs often take precedence over long-term educational investments in financially constrained families (Ray, 2000).
When considering how socioeconomic inequalities are reflected in education, it is also necessary to take account of international policy trends that are gaining prominence in this area. Conditional cash transfer programmes encourage school attendance among economically constrained families by linking education assistance to regular attendance, and they have been shown to substantially reduce child labour and early school leaving (Schady et al., 2009). Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Turkey’s Conditional Education Assistance programmes demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in increasing enrolment rates among disadvantaged groups (DPT, 2007; Rawlings & Rubio, 2005). Consistent with findings from rural Turkey, programmes that provide targeted support to households below a specified income threshold appear to be more effective in removing the most pressing economic barriers to access to education (OECD, 2018).
The Impact of Cultural Structure on Access to Education
Teachers in both rural and urban areas indicate that many aspects of cultural structure influence access to education, a finding consistent with Banks’ (2014) multicultural education model, which emphasises that students’ cultural backgrounds must be taken into account in the educational process.
Linguistic and cultural differences, along with mother-tongue barriers, make access to education difficult in both rural and urban regions. Students frequently experience difficulties expressing themselves and comprehending the language of instruction, which constrains participation and learning. These barriers directly affect academic achievement and contribute to widening educational inequalities. Moreover, inadequate comprehension of the language of instruction leads not only to individual academic failure but also negatively affects students’ integration into society (Cummins, 2017). This finding reinforces the need to incorporate students’ cultural backgrounds into the educational process, as highlighted by Gay (2018) in the framework of culturally responsive pedagogy.
Traditional beliefs and gender roles cause restrictions on girls’ education, and this becomes even more apparent in the later stages of education (UNESCO, 2020). Cultural norms and family expectations continue to act as decisive factors in girls’ access to education, with some communities assigning lower value to female education. Stromquist (2015) emphasises that the structural and cultural dimensions of barriers to girls’ participation in education are intertwined and reflect social power relations. It is important to recognise that the right to education cannot be subject to negotiation in the tension between respect for cultural traditions and the protection of fundamental human rights (Nussbaum, 2011). Especially in societies with sharp rural-urban divides, traditional family structures and economic priorities limit girls’ educational opportunities (Kabeer, 2018). Gender-based educational inequalities weaken not only individuals but also economic development processes (Klasen & Lamanna, 2009), emphasising that the issue extends beyond social justice. However, considering that educational experiences must be culturally sensitive and that interventions made without regard for cultural context will fail in the long term, it is crucial to develop solutions in cooperation and consensus with society (Aikman & Unterhalter, 2005).
Teachers stated that students from different cultures have difficulty adapting to the learning environment and may feel excluded, which negatively affects their psychosocial adaptation. These students’ feelings of exclusion can lead to psychological problems such as low self-esteem and decreased motivation to learn in the long term (J. W. Berry, 2017). According to Ogbu and Simons (1998), the academic failure of students from minority groups stems more from the incompatibility between school and home culture than from individual inadequacies. This situation can become even more complex in multicultural classrooms, particularly due to teachers’ limited intercultural competence (Sue et al., 2019).
Several international trends that are gaining strength in addressing barriers arising from cultural structures also offer important implications for the findings of this study. First, multilingual education approaches that integrate learners’ home languages and cultures into educational processes have been shown to exert positive effects on academic achievement and school attendance in many countries with high concentrations of linguistic minorities (UNESCO, 2016). Second, the culturally responsive pedagogy approach foregrounds the systematic inclusion of students’ cultural references in teaching processes; this makes it possible to reduce feelings of polarisation and to reinforce learning motivation (Gay, 2018). Adapting this approach to Turkey’s heterogeneous cultural and linguistic structure could offer an effective means of alleviating the cultural adaptation difficulties documented in the present findings. Finally, although Turkey’s education reforms have recorded significant progress in promoting girls’ participation in education, sustaining these gains requires the activation of community networks and the development of targeted policies that address gender norms in an analytical manner (Kabeer, 2018).
Physical Structure and Facilities of Schools on Access to Education
Findings from another research question emphasise that teachers working in rural areas consider the physical structure and facilities of schools to be critical for access to education. Teachers reported that schools with favourable conditions possessed adequate classrooms, sports fields, and technological infrastructure. In contrast, physical deficiencies -such as the lack of laboratories, sports halls, internet, and other technical equipment-negatively affected students’ access to education. In urban centres, teachers highlighted that many schools are equipped with smart boards and overhead projectors, which facilitate the teaching process. However, the EBA platform was reported to operate slowly in some schools, and technological tools were considered in need of updating. Research on 21st-century learning environments demonstrates that the design and quality of physical spaces exert a direct influence on students’ motivation, participation, and academic achievement (Woolner et al., 2007). Earthman (2002) states that the quality of school buildings has a statistically significant effect on students’ academic achievement. In this context, the lack of technological infrastructure and equipment in rural schools was found to limit teachers’ pedagogical practices and reduce student motivation.
In addition, teachers noted significant regional disparities between rural and urban centres. Rural schools face disadvantages in transport, resources, and institutional support. Transport problems make it difficult to access schools and create challenges in teacher employment and the provision of educational resources, directly impacting student achievement (Arnold et al., 2005). Compared to urban schools, rural institutions often lack technological infrastructure, library collections, laboratory facilities, and updated instructional materials (Strange, 2011).
Regarding the suitability of physical spaces in urban centres, teachers stated that classes have high student numbers, averaging 40 students per class. In some schools, student numbers exceed capacity, leading to pupils being redirected to other schools. Research has shown that lower class sizes positively affect student achievement, with this effect being more pronounced in classes with fewer than 20 students (Krueger, 1999). From a pedagogical standpoint, crowded classrooms restrict teachers’ ability to implement individualised instruction (Blatchford et al., 2003).
This overcapacity issue is partly driven by parental school choice. Tiebout (1956) emphasises that families select schools based on educational quality, causing some urban schools to operate above capacity. To address this, the Ministry of National Education’s 2009/30 circular mandated address-based school registration from the 2009 to 2010 academic year. Sincar and Özbek (2011) identified positive outcomes, including preventing overcrowding in double-shift schools, achieving balanced student distribution, and reducing irregular donations. However, they also reported concerns that the policy conflicted with democratic principles and encouraged parents to manipulate address records. The overcapacity finding in this study suggests that such challenges persist.
In urban centres, some schools were found to offer facilities for art, music, and sports, whilst others lacked gyms, had inadequate facilities, broken or missing instruments, and limited playgrounds. Education systems should support different areas of talent (Gardner, 1983); otherwise, students’ intellectual abilities cannot be adequately developed. Eisner (2002) likewise states that artistic activities enhance cognitive development, creativity, and critical thinking. In this respect, the absence of such resources undermines students’ opportunities to develop these skills. Similarly, insufficient facilities for physical activity not only restrict students’ ability to maintain physical health but also hinder social development, character formation, and cooperative skills (Bailey, 2006).
Regarding educational materials, teachers stated that transporting necessary materials to classrooms is difficult, material shortages are common, access to authentic teaching materials is limited, and workshops are insufficient. Some teachers emphasised that an adequate physical structure positively affects students’ access to education. The use of appropriate tools and equipment is critical for students to learn through concrete experiences (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Lack of access to authentic instructional resources reduces opportunities for hands-on learning and limits students’ ability to grasp abstract concepts.
Regarding the access of students with disabilities to education, teachers stated that whilst ramps are available, toilet facilities are inadequate, and arrangements for students using wheelchairs were made retrospectively. This demonstrates that the accessibility standards set out in the Law on Persons with Disabilities are not fully implemented and is inconsistent with the principle of physical accessibility emphasised in UNESCO’s (2017) guidelines on inclusion and equality in education. The United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopts the principle of inclusivity in education and guarantees the right of persons with disabilities to access education services without discrimination. In this context, physical accessibility is not merely a convenience but a fundamental right. However, the partial regulations observed indicate that this right is not fully realised. According to universal design principles, physical spaces must be planned from the outset to accommodate the needs of all users (Mace et al., 1996). Whilst the presence of ramps is an important step, it is evident that a comprehensive universal design approach has not been adopted.
When considering these findings on school buildings and physical infrastructure, it is important to take account of international trends aimed at addressing rural infrastructure problems. First, flexible modular school construction approaches that can rapidly adapt to local conditions are increasingly adopted in many developing countries as a viable solution for expanding school infrastructure (OECD, 2021). Second, growing interest in smart classroom technologies -including interactive whiteboards and blended-learning systems that enable both online pedagogy and face-to-face instruction- is becoming more widespread in urban schools; however, inequalities that hinder access to these technologies in rural schools further deepen the problem documented in the present findings (Warschauer & Xu, 2019). Finally, the systematic integration of universal design principles into school construction and renovation processes -rather than ad hoc retrofit solutions- is gaining wider acceptance, and this area is being addressed within an increasingly binding framework in terms of architectural standards and legal regulations (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, 2020). Reflecting these trends in Turkey’s school infrastructure planning could systematically remove access barriers rooted in the physical environment, particularly in rural regions.
Legal Regulations on Access to Education
Another finding indicates that teachers working in both rural and urban areas evaluate the impact of legal regulations on access to education from both positive and critical perspectives. The positive role of compulsory education and attendance monitoring in increasing students’ school attendance was widely acknowledged. However, various shortcomings in the implementation of the current legal framework and inadequacies in the enforcement of legal regulations were noted. Merely defining the right to education in legal texts does not guarantee its automatic fulfilment; effective enforcement mechanisms and adequate resource allocation are equally critical. Marshall and Bottomore (1992) argued that social rights must be supported not only by legal definitions but also by appropriate institutional mechanisms and resource allocation. Lack of coordination in the implementation of education policies, insufficient resources, and differences in local capacities can be decisive factors (Lipsky, 1980).
In the context of special education services, the Special Education Services Regulation, which came into force in 2018, introduced important provisions on inclusive education and individualised education programmes. Nevertheless, persistent challenges remain. Whilst some teachers view legal regulations in special education as beneficial and promoting equal opportunities, others emphasised that support education significantly benefits students’ access to education. Support education services enable students with special needs to remain in their own schools whilst receiving instruction from a special education teacher in a resource room for subjects requiring additional support, with their registration remaining in the general education class (Batu et al., 2005; Pemik & Levent, 2019).
Teachers stated that existing laws need to be improved and sanctions strengthened to be more effective. Whilst the findings indicate that legal regulations provide an inclusive framework for access to education and that the state has taken necessary steps, criticisms remain regarding 12 years of compulsory education. The transition to the 4 + 4 + 4 system and the extension of compulsory education to 12 years in Turkey in 2012 led to significant increases in education access rates. Uslu (2020) found that the school enrolment rate increased from 70% to 85% during the 2019 to 2020 academic year.
However, implementation challenges persist. Düşmez and Bulut (2015) emphasised that the 12-year education system has not been fully effective due to inadequacies in the education programme, socioeconomic differences between regions, inequality of opportunities, and material inadequacies. Teachers emphasised that 12 years of compulsory education is challenging for some students, particularly those with low academic achievement, who should be directed towards vocational training and apprenticeship programmes. This concern is supported by data showing that approximately 1 million students transitioning from secondary school to upper secondary education during 2019 to 2020 were unable to continue (Uslu, 2019). The likelihood of this group, aged 17 and unable to continue their education, entering the workforce is considered high. In this context, directing these students to vocational education centres, as suggested by teachers in this study, appears critical.
At this point, international trends that are gaining strength in relation to vocational education and apprenticeship programmes should also be incorporated into the discussion. Dual-track systems, such as Germany’s dual vocational education model, enable more flexible transitions between academic pathways and vocational training, thereby markedly reducing school dropout rates among compulsory school-age students (Euler, 2013). In this context, the OECD (2020) emphasises that work-oriented vocational programmes supported by strong enforcement mechanisms and targeted at rural and disadvantaged regions play a critical role in reducing early school leaving among low-achieving students. In addition, a rights-based approach, which has emerged as an important trend in education policy -through legal awareness campaigns aimed at enabling individuals to know and exercise their legal rights- shows promising results in closing the gap between legal norms and practical requirements (Tomasevski, 2001). This approach may function as an effective tool, particularly when rural families lack adequate information about educational rights and available supports; as identified in this study, this information deficit is especially pronounced in rural areas.
Some teachers reported that the transport-based education system provides significant ease of access to education and that student transport services are regularly carried out. However, they also noted that this system is not a permanent solution and argued that education should be delivered directly to rural areas. Transport-based education is a service that enables students who cannot receive education in their place of residence to benefit from education by being transported daily to educational institutions outside their locality, referred to as transport centres (Bavlı, 2025). In Turkey, this practice was implemented only at the primary education level between 1989 and 2010, extended to the 9th and 10th grades of secondary education in 2011, and expanded to include the 11th and 12th grades when the 12-year compulsory education system was introduced in 2012 (Bavlı, 2025).
Access to education has been improved through transport, thereby promoting equal opportunities. In addition, this practice has contributed to increasing school attendance rates, reducing combined classes, and lowering certain educational costs (teacher employment, buildings, and facilities). However, challenges persist, including issues related to road and vehicle safety, nutrition, parent–teacher communication, and particularly younger children’s adaptation (Kale, 2012; Kaya, 2023). Nevertheless, the transport-based education system is recognised in the international literature as one of Turkey’s successful policies for increasing access to education in rural areas (World Bank, 2019).
The current limitations of transported education indicate that blended learning models are increasingly viewed as a viable alternative within rural access-to-education policy. Blended learning is defined as a flexible, mixed approach that integrates face-to-face and online instruction to help overcome geographical barriers (Horn & Staker, 2015). In rural schools, the remote delivery of certain subjects, the mitigation of teacher shortages, and the preservation of social ties with the local community underscore the practical viability of this model. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the EBA (Education Informatics Network) platform implemented in Turkey facilitated rural students’ access to online learning content; however, infrastructure problems such as insufficient bandwidth and device shortages substantially constrained the effectiveness of this process (Karabacak & Çam Aktaş, 2024). International comparative studies likewise emphasise that prerequisites such as infrastructure, digital equity, and pedagogical readiness must be met before blended models can be fully adopted (OECD, 2021). In this context, it is more realistic to position blended learning not as a replacement for transported education, but as a complementary mechanism through which students can maintain regular school attendance while accessing additional learning opportunities at their own pace.
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are proposed:
Awareness-raising initiatives on guidance, gender equality, and peer support should be implemented to positively transform parental attitudes towards education.
Special education services and financial support mechanisms should be expanded to ensure equal opportunities for disadvantaged students.
Mother-tongue support, cultural sensitivity training, and community awareness programmes should be introduced to prevent cultural and linguistic differences from becoming barriers.
Spatial inequalities in education should be reduced by ensuring equal and accessible school infrastructure across regions.
Supervision, enforcement, and sustainable measures should be developed to ensure the effective implementation of education laws, particularly in rural areas.
Systematic, awareness-raising, and supportive measures should be taken to address physical, administrative, pedagogical, and social challenges that hinder inclusive education.
To increase access to education in rural schools, digital infrastructure investments should be prioritised, and student-focussed national support programmes should be implemented to provide broadband connectivity and device support. To ensure that technology integration is not limited to hardware provision alone, digital pedagogy training for teachers should also be included.
Rather than fully replacing transported education, hybrid learning models that blend face-to-face and online instruction should be piloted in rural schools and evaluated systematically. Once their effectiveness has been demonstrated with robust evidence, their integration into national policy is essential for both pedagogical flexibility and the principle of equal opportunity.
To reduce access-to-education barriers arising from social structures, structured school-family partnership programmes targeting rural and disadvantaged regions should be developed; in this context, digital platforms that strengthen communication between families and schools should be utilised, and targeted scholarship and mentoring programmes for girls’ education should be implemented.
To mitigate the adverse impact of socioeconomic inequality on education, conditional cash transfer (CCT) mechanisms for families with household incomes below a specified threshold should be expanded and strengthened; these transfers should be explicitly linked to goals for school attendance and student achievement. Supported by effective monitoring mechanisms to prevent child labour, such programmes can play a decisive role in reducing school dropout caused by financial constraints.
To reduce the educational impacts of barriers arising from cultural structures, teacher education programmes should include modules on culturally responsive pedagogy and intercultural competence. To mitigate the adverse effects of traditional gender norms on girls’ access to education, community-level awareness-raising and empowerment programmes should be supported; these programmes should be designed to remain effective without conflicting with community values.
Universal design principles should be adopted as a mandatory standard in school infrastructure planning; new construction and renovation projects should be designed in accordance with these principles. Modular construction solutions for rural schools should be set as attainable targets, and the unequal distribution of smart classroom technologies between rural and urban schools should be treated as a key criterion when prioritising infrastructure investments.
Footnotes
Author Notes
A part of the study was presented in 12th International Eurasian Educational Research Congress on 28 June 2025.
Ethical Considerations
This study was granted ethical approval by Anadolu University Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Committee on 28 February 2025 (850471).
Consent to Participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Permission to Reproduce Material from Other Sources
This study does not contain any material reproduced from other sources.