Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper aims to understand the nature of classrooms, “power containers” in Gidden’s words (Giddens, 1986, p.136), in terms of inequality and power share. Inequalities in education have been a by-passed subject in Turkey for a long time, and classroom practices remained “black boxes” (Mehan, 1979, p.4). Thus, after a brief summary of power issue in education, educational inequality discussions and their reflections in the Turkish context are discussed in the study. Then, the position teachers hold is discussed with references to history and society. Then, the 6-month observations and interviews conducted on the first grade are discussed both chronically and thematically. Beginning on the first day of school, the teacher held a higher position than the students and parents and distributed power share among students. Students were discriminated against according to their parents and cultural capital (language, strategies, communication style, and school materials). In accordance with the neoliberal policies, middle-class students and their parents were fronted in the classroom and they had more power than the others. However, lower-class students had little power and they were mostly criticized in the classroom. The strategies and advantages middle-class students had over lower-class ones are discussed in the study.

Keywords

power relations inequality in education social class ethnography primary education

Introduction

Power is not only a phenomenon of conduct but also relation. It “brings into play relations between individuals” (Foucault, 2001, p.337) most vividly in goal-directed activities, such as education. Foucault refers to education as one of the “complete and austere institutions” (Foucault, 1995) where tasks are defined objectively and control is required (Foucault, 2001). Teacher is the social actor activating relations of power in education (Zamora Poblete et al., 2020). Especially in non-Western cultures where teacher is a symbol of authority, teacher–student power relations seem to be ignored in data-driven studies. This study aims to understand teacher–student relations of power with extensive observational data in a primary classroom. A class of first grade in a primary school is observed for the whole school year to understand how the power relations of teacher–student and teacher–class are constructed in the first year of official schooling. As Bernstein (2001) asserts, the real structure of power relations is aimed to be understood through a thorough analysis of education in practice.

Power relations are covertly realized through hidden curriculum (Apple and King, 1991). The elements of dominant culture are highlighted by stratifying knowledge, content, culture, and students by performing power relations unequally. Also, specific power relations in the real world are realized through schools (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015). The academic selectivity of schools strengthens power issues in education. Students from high social classes have the cultural capital schools ask for and become high achievers easily. Middle-class families know the rules of schooling game and their children become more successful (Lareau, 2015). Lacking the asked-for cultural capital, students from lower classes are separated from the school community by distant relationships with the teachers and school culture (Willis, 1981. Bernstein (2001) theorizes this discursive, instructional, and social differentiation under one term: classification. He predicates that power creates “punctuations in social space” and “operates on the relations between categories” (p.5). The strong or weak classification of content, roles, discourses, practices, etc., determine the insulation of power. Strong classification of personal relationships, courses, and contents imply more visible and rigid power relations in the school while weak classification exerts a more democratic share of power.

Classrooms are “power containers” (Giddens, 1986, p.136) where actors create an authority pattern through their coexistence. The power relations in the classrooms have diverse effects on student engagement and thinking (Donnelly, McGarr, & O'Reilly, 2014). They are determined by the social dynamics of the classroom (teacher role, student–teacher interactions, peer relations, etc.) (Winograd, 2002) and the society (Alexander, 2000; 2009). Neo-Marxism criticizes state-governed modern education for producing the “banking system” where teachers are filled with power and made the commander of students (Pace & Hemmings, 2008; Freire, 2018). They empower themselves as the subjects of the learning process by talking, teaching, thinking, disciplining, and selecting students. This study asks how a teacher constructs power relations in Turkish primary school classrooms. Primary school is exclusive for setting the ground of education career. Thus, a first grade is selected for this study to understand how power relations are constructed in the first place. Turkey is a distinct place for inequalities in education and a powerful teacher image. In Turkey, teachers are empowered by history and culture (which is explained below) and they distribute the positions of students in classrooms. The neoliberal policies had them differentiate students according to their cultural capital. Also, the “class-less society” discourse hindered the studies of inequality in education. Thus, the study focuses on ethnographic data to understand how a teacher distributes power among students in classrooms. Power relations are “connected to the embedded and historically situated contexts of schooling and society” (Althusser, 2014, p.6). Thus, I begin with a small brief of the Turkish context. As inequalities in Turkish education are not dealt with in detail in the literature, I start with reviewing inequality theories in education and their reflections on Turkish education. Then, I discuss how teacher power is generated from Turkish social and historical contexts. Finally, I discuss how the teacher distributes power to students in two first grade classrooms. My discussions focus on ethnographic data of 6 months (2019 September–2020 March) in a first grade classroom, interviews with the classroom teacher, and students. The setting of the study is distinct for the construction of power relations as first grade is explanatory of how student identities are formed on the grounds of power relations.

Inequality in Education and Turkey District

Education is a complex phenomenon involving power relations (Althusser, 2014; Freire, 2018; Bauman, 2018; Giddens, 1986) and reproduction through these relations (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015; Bernstein, 2001). Schools are referred to as the new markets of “neoliberalism” (Harvey, 2005, p.2) reproducing culture and raising generations (Freire, 2018/1991). Although equality is advocated by the meritocracy rhetoric of modernity, human capital theory (Becker, 1945), and neoliberal indoctrination (MacDonald & Portelli, 2020), critical studies of Willis, 1982, Bourdieu and Passeron, 2015 assert the school’s role in reproducing social and economic inequalities. Bernstein indicates the effect of language codes (restricted code for simple, direct speech and low socioeconomic status; elaborated code for detailed, complex and middle and high socioeconomic status) in this reproduction. The reproductive role of education is also visible in Turkey where high achievers are mostly children of higher social classes (Özoğlu, 2020; Suna et al., 2020). The OECD statistics confirm the inequality with the advantaged students being three times more likely to get 2 years of early education and more advanced in reading skills (OECD, 2020).

To understand the inequalities in education, one needs to see where the advantages are piled up (Wilson & Scarbrough, 2018). The international statistics purport the advantages of education (or diploma) are piled up in employment rates (OECD, 2008), salary (OECD, 2020), and life circumstances (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). These advantages seem similar for Turkey, too. The unemployment rates are the highest for illiterates (TSI, 2021a). Also, the yearly-salaries of university graduates are three times as much as primary school graduates (TSI, 2021b). Moreover, the life circumstances seem to be better economically, socially, and culturally for the educationally advantaged (TSI, 2021b). While education plays the determiner in shaping one’s life, the system of Turkish education embodies imbalances/inequalities. From primary school to undergraduate level, there are two types of schools. One is state schools free of charge, and the other one is private schools (they make 20% of the system, MoNE, 2020) with different fees. Although free education eases access to education, it puts high responsibilities on the state: supplying school buildings, quality teachers, learning materials, etc. 11% of the whole population is at school age in Turkey, which requires high investments in education. However, Turkey invests less than the OECD average in education (OECD, 2019). Also, Turkey is a country where there are major economic, cultural, and social differences between the east and the west, the urban and the rural, and different districts. Although the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) accepts equal opportunity as the main principle, school enrollment is higher in socioeconomically advanced districts by 30% (MoNE, 2020) and time spent in education is longer for higher socioeconomic status (TEDMEM, 2019). Also, the gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in the country seem more than in most countries taken in the statistics (OECD, 2019).

These differences result in higher salaries for the advantaged groups (Patrinos, Psacharopoulos, & Tansel, 2019) and they produce educational inequalities. It is hypothesized that neoliberalism in Turkey put more emphasis on standardized test scores and school selectivity (İnal & Akkaymak, 2012). Socioeconomically advantaged students seem advantageous in terms of selectivity as they get higher scores from standard tests (Atmaca, 2019; Cingöz & Gür, 2020; Suna et al., 2020). However, focusing only on school selectivity and performativity leads to limited understandings of neoliberal education and social justice. Neoliberalism changes social processes (Davies & Bansel, 2007) and equating school success with test scores becomes short in discourse (Joshee, 2009). Studies about Turkey, unfortunately, seem limited for focusing mostly on test scores and family income level. There is a strong link between education with social classes (Atmaca, 2019; Alpman, 2009); however, the social processes and events contributing to these inequalities are a “black box” (Mehan, 1979, p.4) for Turkey. There are two reasons for this mystery. First, economic relates of success and power relations in classrooms are overlooked as social classes are excluded from these research (Mehan, 1979). Second, the sociology of classrooms is unknown to the researchers as research is focused mostly on educational outcomes (Johnston, 2007; Suna et al., 2020; Cingöz & Gür, 2020; Torun-Hakverdi, 2014; Şengönül, 2007). Thus, power relations in classrooms and schools need a closer look. The study is distinct as it does not “view education as a carrier of power relations external to education” (Bernstein, 2001, p.4) and it belies on rich observational and ethnographic data.

Power in the hands of the teacher, the figure of dignity

To explain the status of teachers in the classroom, we need to take a closer look into historical roots. Teachers have long been perceived as “figures of dignity” in Turkey. This perception has a foundation in the Ottoman education system where teachers were beholders of Islamic knowledge and respected for religious reasons (Yıldız & Gündüz, 2019; Akyüz, 1982). Their power was conserved politically when the Turkish Republic was founded by positioning them in the center of the new system (Trkiye Byk Millet Meclisi, 1926). Teachers were referred to as “the soldiers of the second army” (Atatürk, 1923) who would enlighten society with knowledge and science. The neoliberal political discourse stated the significance of the “teacher army” often and put the responsibility of the nation’s cultural development on teachers’ shoulders (Gümüşlü, 2005). Education became the main tool of elites to transform the population (Ergin, Rankin, & Gökçen, 2019) and teachers were seen as the Stakhanovs of this mission (Karaömerlioğlu, 1998) in the neoliberal society.

With developments in psychology, 1936 and later curriculums in Turkey took student interests, background knowledge, skills, and attributes into consideration (Beyaztaş, Kapti, & Senemoğlu, 2013). Later in 2005, the philosophy shift from Behaviorism to Constructivism of Ministry of National Education generated some changes in power share in classroom. Teachers who practiced constructivist education in their classes indicated a more democratic and participatory classroom (İpekel, 2021; Çandar & Şahin, 2013; Çelebi İlhan, 2013; Koç, 2006). However, teaching practice and classroom management has long been criticized for not being student-centered (Genç, 2021; Kutluer, 2021; Okumuş, 2021; Bayrak‐Özmutlu, 2018; Incik & Tanrıseven, 2012; Maden, Durukan, & Akbaş, 2011). Teaching material (Küçükaydın & İşcan, 2017) and practice seems to be far-from this policy (Tanık, 2020; Tatar & Ceyhan, 2018). Although teachers seem to share power and give voice to students in other countries (Skerritt, Brown, & O’Hara, 2021), local studies overlook the issue of inequalities (Demir, 2018; Doğan, 2018) or point to reluctances to empower students (Şahin, 2020; Arseven, Şahin, & Kılıç, 2016; Busher, Lawson, Wilkins, & Acun, 2011; Koşar-Altınyelken, 2011).

Teacher’s tendency to create the authoritarian role in the classrooms harks back to teacher training programs and scholars in Faculties of Education. There are very few studies about inequalities in education (Bölükbaş & Gür, 2020; Kaysılı, 2020; Sarı, 2012) although the literature is highly rich in international scope. Besides, the “Sociology of Education” course was dismissed from teacher training programs in 1998, added as an elective course in 2006 and became a compulsory course in 2018. Most of the current teachers did not take “Sociology of Education” as a course at university, and they seem to be unaware of the issue. Also, there are very few scholars who could raise the awareness of prospective teachers as there are very few graduate programs on Sociology of Education (10 Master’s programs and 4 PhD programs).

First day of school—predetermined positions

Istanbul is a cosmopolitan city and has different towns with different economical, cultural, and life conditions. Dr. Resit Galip Primary School is a state school in a middle-standard town with a low life index (şeker, 2015) Zeytinburnu, Istanbul. There are many textile mills, Syrian shops, and small retailers in the neighborhood. One of the teachers in the school mentioned that there are very few civil servant, teacher, engineer, or lawyer parents in the school. The majority of the students belong to low-middle or low social classes. The school has three floors, a small conference room, one activity room, and a garden. Although there are no laboratories in the school, the garden is a big advantage, as most state schools in İstanbul do not have a garden.

First graders start school earlier than other grades for orientation. On the first day, first graders and their parents gathered in the garden. Students were in school uniforms running in the garden, parents held school bags, and started chatting in small groups. Some parents were already neighbors and in a relationship as school registrations are made according to a residential address. The school principal appeared in the rostrum and made his speech. He talked on and on about how teachers will take the students to their classrooms, where parents should stand, how they should not behave, when they should leave, etc. His speech was sort of a declaration of rules and included lots of “Don’ts” to prevent unwelcome behavior.

When the school principal finished his talk, teachers read the names of their students and led them to the classrooms. Kubra Teacher (in her 30s) took 1-C (the name of the class) students and parents to the classroom. With the permission of the teacher, parents entered the classroom with their children. Good-looking parents chose the front desks for their children, took their well-prepared school materials, and showed affection to them. They were calm and confident while preparing their children for the teacher. They were focused on themselves and were not interested in others. The left-outs sat their children in the back and followed the teacher and parents in the front with their judging eyes. Their attention was not on their children but on the leader of the group and her primary associates. Kubra Teacher started to talk:

“Yees, welcome all. This is our classroom. My name is Kubra and I am your teacher. Now, our mothers can you leave? We will meet. [Looking at the parents in the front] You can wait at the door or in the garden.”

The parents in the front took the news well and kissed their children. They were focused on the wellness of their children and uttered comforting words. They used ego-centric language¹ common in middle classes (Bernstein, 1962) as Ayşe Hanim: “I will be outside and wait for you. If you need anything, just tell your teacher, ok?” (mother of Azra, a female first grader). Common in the middle classes, her language was ego-centric (Bernstein, 1962). The parents at the back; however, were preparing their children for the teacher and exhorted them to behave well in the classroom. Their sentences were generally imperative and short. For example, Sılanur’s mother told her daughter: “Listen to your teacher carefully. Do what she says, ok?” (Hayriye Hanim, mother of Sılanur, a female first grader). Parents left, and the teacher asked students to introduce themselves. The ones in the front told their names, surnames, and they gave at least one extra piece of information such as their ages, how many siblings they had, and where they lived. They seemed shy but took their time, spoke silently but used full sentences. Their language was elaborated. The students in the back seats; on the other hand, used restricted codes and introduced themselves shortly. They spoke fast and sat back quickly, which prevented teacher reaction and bonding.

In the second lesson, someone knocked the door and told the teacher that the books were ready to take (the Turkish government supplies course books for every student registered). The teacher approached the door, looked outside and told the parents: “We are getting the books. Can you help please?” The parents got into motion while the teacher made students line up. They surely knew the rules of the game (Lareau, 2015) and ready to fit in. While they were going downstairs, the fronted parents (the ones who sat their children in the front) came close to the teacher and started asking questions. The left-outs were at the back again, silent with the teacher, other parents, or their children. They were just following the steps and gazing around. When they came near the books, the teacher said: “Can you carry the books?” She was looking directly at the fronting parents. Although the left-outs were in the group, they were invisible in interaction and task share. They did not carry any books to the classroom; still, they walked with the group.

Days go by: rules and rules

In the classroom, power relations are established around rules. In the third week, I told the teacher that students started showing group attributes and they looked like a genuine class. Her reaction to this comment explains how power is distributed in the classroom: “I am very attentive about classroom order. Most of my colleagues ask me how I manage it. They say they still can’t even make students sit or stop talking, and ask me how I do it. I can say that I am rule-based. And my students just follow the rules. Most classes didn’t even start learning sounds. I don’t want to judge them but they are late. We should follow the schedule. I always finish the letters before the second term. I am good at timing. That’s why my students are successful. We go by the rules.” (Kubra Teacher, interview, 21.12.2019)

Kubra Teacher puts the rules on the ground of pedagogic device. The schedule, pacing, and selection of teaching content are determined by the state, or in Bernstein’s terminology, the Official Recontextualising Field. “As a consequence of the National Curriculum, there is a stronger classification” (Bernstein, 2001, p.60) and framing. “Kubra Teacher spends most of the class time with arranging classroom order, cleaning, etc.” (classroom notes, 15.10.2019). Rules outweigh student curiosity, effort, and success. Students are channeled to follow the required path, and they are warned against when they do anything extra. For example, when Bunyamin (a male first grader) excitedly told the teacher he solved a labyrinth on the new book, he was warned against: “Nooooo! We will do them together!” (classroom notes, 24.09.2019). The schedule of the labyrinth task was not then, so the success of the student was ignored for the sake of a strongly classified schedule. Similarly, students were made to follow the rules when they showed their writings to the teacher with excitement: “I am not looking now. Wait. I will come near you.” (classroom notes, 28.10.2019). Their eagerness for learning was scheduled, too.

The teacher’s attitude towards rules is spread to the students quickly. They start complaining to the teacher. They report rule breakers:

Bekir: Teacher! Teacher!

Kubra T: We are not saying “teacher”

Bekir: But Mert is opening and closing my bottle

The teacher goes near him, puts the bag between them so that the bottle is away from Mert. She does not say anything more to Bekir. She forgives him for breaking the ‘don’t say teacher’ rule” (classroom notes, 01.10.2019).² Then, they start warning each other, too. When they are on individual tasks, tasks are mostly individual, they warn each other to follow the rules: “Mert is talking with Enes in the back. Enes says: I am not talking with you. I am busy with my lesson” (31.10.2019).³ However, some rules are more flexible for some students. The ones who rarely get a warning are rarely warned. Their rule-breaking behaviors are mostly ignored like in:

Serdar is playing with a plastic bag and making noise. The teacher does not warn him. Serdar looks at the teacher and he seems baffled (classroom notes, 09.01.2020). Serdar is one of the most successful students in the classroom. His mother was one of the frontiers in the orientation week.

Mert asks the recess time. Teacher says: “We were not asking this question, remember? Why are you asking me? We weren’t asking this question. Why are you asking? Tell me”. Mert goes to his desk, he seems about to cry. A couple of minutes later, Nuray asks the recess time: “Teacher when is the recess?“. The teacher says: “We weren’t asking this, but there are only 5 minutes” (classroom notes, 16.01.2020). The teacher gives a totally different reaction to the two students. They both asked the same thing, but one of them was reprehended while the other was warned softly and answered. Nuray (a female first grader) is also one of the successful students, and she is barely warned. Her mother was also one of the frontiers in the orientation week. The status mothers got in the orientation week is inherited to students. Middle-class students are favored and rarely criticized in the classroom. They have more power and voice than the lower-class students. An external feature, social class, plays a significant role in distributing power and this is compatible with Bernstein’s framing theory: “w(W)here framing is strong, that is when the external feature is strong, social class may play a crucial role” (Bernstein, 2001, p.14). Because classroom culture is mostly created by the teacher, and students were expected to fit in. Kubra Teacher appears as a body of power in the classroom, expecting students to be silent listeners, homework doers, punctual comers, and hardworking learners. Her language is overt and inclusive of direct negative comments as in this example when Mehmet (lower-class student) came late to the classroom:

Teacher: Mehmet, why are you late?

Mehmet: ….

Teacher: You are always one hour late. Today, you are two hours late. Were you ill? From now on you’ll be marked absent when you are late. Beware.

Mehmet: …

Teacher: Tell me why are you late?

Mehmet: …

Teacher: Why don't you say Mehmet?!

Mehmet: …

Teacher: From now on you’ll be marked absent (classroom notes, 07.02.2020).⁴

The power of the teacher for inequalities

The language of the teacher above characterizes “disciplinarian discursive talk” (Read, 2008). She is overt and direct in her speech, and she mentions the punishment Mehmet will get if he keeps being late, in other words, breaking the rule. Yılmaz mentions punishment as an often-applied technique for discipline in Turkish classrooms (Yılmaz, 2007). Especially primary school teachers regard students as the ones to bring order and teach rules to (Cabi, 2016, p.82). Kubra Teacher’s this talk is exemplifying it:

“Teacher: Listen to me. (Students are still talking). What was my name? I am afraid I’m not your teacher. Because nobody listens to me when I say listen to me.

One of the students says “You are not the teacher then?

Teacher: Let’s take you out then. Go.” (27.12.2019). The discursive rules of the classroom are relayed to the students through overt and direct speech. Teachers have control over students, which establishes strong framing between the two agents, student, and teacher.

“…Disciplinary behaviours in the classroom may result, among other factors, from the interaction between the specific coding orientation to the regulative context of the pedagogic practice, when this context is considered in terms of the teacher-student control relations, and the socio-affective dispositions to the teacher’s pedagogic practice.” (Silva & Neves, 2007, p.221). The power relations Kubra Teacher established with students for classroom order is maintained for pedagogic content, too. She was the source of knowledge and correctness, and students needed to follow her to be successful: “I think you made a mistake Serhat. Mistakes here, because you didn’t listen to me. What did I say? If you listened to me, you would do correctly” (classroom notes, 17.01.2020). “Such liberal language does (however, still) emphasize the teacher–pupil power relation, by placing the teacher as the one with the ‘authority’ to judge and evaluate the pupils’ work” (Read, 2008). The teacher seems like a “boss” of students who says what to do and how to do it, as Jackson states (1990, p.31). Ahmadi and Hassani (2018) state hierarchical power relations passivize students and ignore their interest, voice, and individuality.

Inherited Status: Language and Parental Reference

Cultural capital is inherited to children through habitus (Bourdieu, 1983), which embraces language inheritance, too. Class 1-C students were inherited with a specific language code, elaborated or restricted, and they use it in the classroom context. The difference between fronted and left-out parents’ language code plays a significant role in determining students’ power share. Students with restricted codes have trouble understanding the teacher/following her instructions and expressing themselves. Kubra Teacher uses elaborated code with implies, full sentences, adjectives, and adverbs as Bernstein identifies (Taylor & Robinson, 2009). The children of left-out parents mostly seem confused and stay silent when the teacher uses that code, as in the instance:

“It’s mealtime. Serkan⁵ is drinking his beverage standing. The teacher warns him: ‘Serkan, are we drinking our beverages standing?‘. Serkan looks at her, he didn’t understand. Teacher: ‘Where is your seat?’ Serkan shows. Teacher: ‘Sit, quick!‘. Serkan goes to his seat. He is still drinking his beverage afoot. The teacher warns him again: ‘Serkan, are you still drinking it standing?’ Her voice is louder. Serkan didn’t understand her” (classroom notes, 15.10.2019). Serkan’s father is a worker and he is not active in the classroom. He barely speaks and his materials are mostly disordered. In the instance, Kubra Teacher uses elaborated language and implies Serkan’s mistake with a question. Serkan understands her direct order but does not understand her to imply and continues on his mistake.

Students from lower classes are passive in the classroom while they are much talkative in their peer groups. They stay silent when their words are not “quality enough.” The “‘implicit contract’ between student and teacher that makes it almost a compulsory condition of participation that students ‘speak responsibly, intelligibly, and usefully” (Taylor & Robinson, 2009, p.167). Even when they are addressed directly, they seem reluctant to speak or ask questions, as in:

“Mehmet and Mert are playing with the keys of drawers. … Teacher says: ‘I told Mehmet and Mert to play with the keys. And apparently, they have completed the task I gave them with full responsibility and effort. Well done.’ Mehmet and Mert are looking at the teacher, apparently, they didn’t understand her. They keep looking vague after she finished talking” (20.02.2020). Mehmet and Mert followed the implicit contract and did not ask the teacher what she meant, none of the restricted coded / lower class students did.

“When children learn a language, they are not simply engaging in one type of learning among many; rather, they are learning the foundations of learning itself” (Halliday, 1993, p. 93, p. 93). Students of 1-C needed correct articulation, pronunciation, and semiotics to learn reading and writing. The ones with restricted codes had trouble in finding the sounds in words (e.g., Is there ‘a’ in ‘kiraz’?, classroom notes, 06.10.2019), and writing teacher dictations (“When you pronounce the words wrong, you may feel like there are other sounds in them” Kubra Teacher, classroom notes, 12.12.2019). Also, language helps them to engage in the learning process. For example, “teacher is using drama. She has a puppet cow in her hand. She says ‘Dear black cow, can you say hi to the classroom?’ She waits and says: ‘It said to tell the children to take care of themselves and never forget the ‘c’ of the cow’. İlkim⁶ answers ‘Aleykum selam’.⁷ The teacher says ‘Well done to İlkim. When somebody says hi, we say hi to them. İlkim, can you come and help me with the homework?” (classroom notes, 15.10.2019). İlkim is the daughter of a middle-class family, and her language competence and semiotic skill brought her power share with the teacher. Moreover, the language advantage brings the children of fronted parents (middle-class students) to the front in the classroom, literally:

“Teacher is reading, students are writing. When they finish, the teacher is controlling them one by one. The ones who wrote them all correctly stand up, walk and stand in front of the board. Their faces are against their sitting friends. They all look at their mistaken friends. The teacher goes near them and congratulates them. Then, she also congratulates the ones with only one mistake. The rest of the class needs to study more at home. The teacher writes the correct words on the board. Students correct their mistakes on their own” (classroom notes, 28.10.2019). The students in front of the board are middle class children mostly, and they are praised for their work. They were embodied by their physical posture and pioneered in the classroom. The rest vanished in the thin air and not addressed again. The lesson continued with the competent ones.

Besides the inheritance of language competence, the continuing effort of parents was also a factor helping power share. Kubra Teacher reminded the parent effect on students’ academic and regulative discourse often. For instance, “Teacher is asking if students studied counting by tens with their parents. Some students say yes. Some are silent. The teacher asks Berre⁸ if she studied with her parents. Berre is silent. She asks her to count. Berre says ‘ten’ and stops. The teacher is repeating how to count: 10, 20, 30…. Berre isn’t listening, she is busy with her food and drink. The teacher looks directly at her but Berre isn’t looking at her. Şeyda⁹ wants to count. She counts correctly and fast. The teacher asks the class to applaud. She says ‘Some never study with their parents.’” (classroom notes, 17.11.2019). Parental involvement in education is determining the praise in the classroom. Şeyda’s mother is a teacher and her father is a lawyer. Their help to Şeyda accommodated her with the teacher and peer praise while Berre’s working father and housewife mother’s disengagement caused her guiltiness and low status in the classroom. Berre was silent during the rest of the lesson while Şeyda was active and happy.

The effort of parents was turned into a different share of power in the classroom by praise and blame. Yet, students became aware of this parental effect on their power subconsciously and started blaming them: “The ones not knowing their right or left are in front of the board. The teacher asks if they studied at home. One of the students says ‘Teacher my father promised to study me when he comes home at night. But he forgot.’” (classroom notes, 09.01.2020). Moreover, middle-class students joined this blame on working-class parents: “Teacher, I think you should tell their parents. They always forgot” (classroom notes, 09.01.2020). A similar version of parental reference was performed in the early weeks of the school year, but it was more of compliance, implying the importance given to the school by the parents.

Students are talking about the off days. Berre says “Tomorrow no school.” Ilkim says “Tomorrow is not a holiday.” The teacher hears them and says “Let’s remember the days. What is the day today? Thursday. Tomorrow is Friday. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.” İlkim: ‘My mother told me. She tells the truth. Teacher do you know, my mother made two braids for school.’ The teacher tells her that her hair looks pretty.

…

Ilkim starts walking into the classroom. She goes near Berre and looks at her work. Then, she says “Teacher Berre is doing wrong” (classroom notes, 03.10.2019).

The habitus similarity between school and home provided the correct answer of holiday days to Berre. This similarity brings power to the children of middle class (Calarco, 2018; Lareau, 2015; Lareau, 2003). This power was then approved by the teacher with praise on her school preparation and helped her have power over Berre (lower-class student). She felt the power to control her work and collaborated with the teacher by reporting her poor work.

Conclusion

Education is one of the stages where power is actively processed through the requirement of correctness (Giddens, 1986). The dialogs in a classroom are mostly based on true knowledge and specified ways to reach that knowledge, which presumably construct the main foundation of power relations. A teacher is equipped with the power of knowledge in direct instructions (Durkheim, 1956) and the power of the state/ideology in the hidden curriculum (Apple & King, 1981). The classrooms seem to be stages of power performances (Teo & Osborne, 2014; Harjunen, 2012; Doerr, 2009), creating inequalities among students (Tualaulelei, 2021; Kivisto, 2018; Sedden, 2001; Bernstein, 2001; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1983).

Turkey is a relatively untouched ground for educational inequalities. The relationship between socioeconomic status - school enrollment (MoNE, 2020; TEDMEM, 2019), and school success (Atmaca, 2019; Alpman, 2009) demonstrate a general unequal picture; however, the inner dynamics remain unsolved. In the study, classroom experiences are observed for power relations and it was observed that the teacher distributes power unequally in the classroom with her interactions with the previously constructed meanings of “objects” (Blumer, 1986, s.10) and students. Teacher as a social object was historically and culturally constructed as a figure of dignity (Atatürk, 1923; Gümüşlü, 2005; Yıldız & Gündüz, 2019) and placed in the center of education (Trkiye Byk Millet Meclisi, 1926). The reflections of this social object (teacher) were observable in the classroom when Kubra Teacher reminded the classroom that she is the power:

“Listen to me. (Students are still talking). What was my name? I am afraid I’m not your teacher. Because nobody listens to me when I say listen to me.” (27.12.2019)

“Nobody is talking. If you have something to say to your friends, tell me first.” (17.09.2019).

The first day of school was quite explanatory for power relations and the power share of students were determined on the first day according to their parents’ behaviors and status. The socioeconomically advantaged parents were eager to be in the front, and they had the correct strategies. Their language codes and habitus were already like the teachers’, which helped them be fronted. The interaction teacher had with those fronted parents were similar to their children in the classroom. Kubra Teacher were more tolerant and intimate to fronted parents’ children without notice. For instance, when Bunyamin (the son of a fronted mother) told “I like running in the recess time.” (14.10.2019) Kubra Teacher took an affirmative attitude and said “Runniing, running is good for your health”. However, when Mehmet (the son of a mother in the back) seemed red and sweaty because of running she warned him not to run in the recess time because it is forbidden (21.10.2019). Fronted students like Bunyamin gained self-esteem as a result of teachers affirmatory attitude towards them while disadvantaged students became more and more silent.

Roles are defined not as singular objects but multi-dimensioned complex notions (Goffman, 2018; Gross, Mason & McEachern, 1958; Bates, 1956). They involve different positions and attitudes within itself, which explains the teacher taking up different role faces to different students in the classroom. As a result, differentiated interactions between teacher and students from low and middle socio-economic status has created different status for students in the classroom. The interaction given below explains differentiated power distribution:

“All students are writing the text on their notebooks. Teacher is walking among the desks and checking their work one by one. Serkan (a male student, low class) comes near the teacher asking “Teacher, is it ok?”. Teacher says “What am I doing here? I will come to your desks, sit now”. … (a few moments later) Bunyamin comes near the teacher and asks “Teacher is my writing accurate?” Teacher says “It is, well done Bunyamin.”” (27.02.2020).

Kubra Teacher played different role to Serkan and Bunyamin, which created different role spaces for them. While Bunyamin got power for his accurate writing, Serkan was receded. Also, she often asked students “Why did you do this?” when they had mistakes in their writing, misspell the words, or made a mistake like spilling their juice on their desks. Directing all the attention to the mistaken student created the feelings of guilt and shame on students. This way, the students who did mistakes became quieter and quieter. As Mead (2021) points, the interaction between the teacher and students led students behave within the circle that the teacher drew for them.

Kubra Teacher’ being a rule-based leader in the classroom contributed to the stratification of students according to their social classes as Bowles and Gintis (2001) suggest. Socioeconomically advantaged students, middle-class students, in this case, were ready to fit in classroom rules. As middle-class families establish a life circled with rules (Bernstein, 2003), middle-class students performed obedient behavior and cooperated with the teacher by informing the rule breakers. This way, they succeeded in getting a bigger share of power. Also, middle-class students’ habitus supported school life (Jin & Ball, 2021). They mentioned how their parents make their look, materials, or homework ready for school (Stacey, 2016), which also helped to get an advantage in power distribution. Moreover, their language was advantageous in understanding teacher directions and expressing themselves. Also, the school language was of their language code, the elaborative code (Bernstein, 2003), resulting in better achievement and bigger power share. Students from lower-class; however, lacked all these strategies and tools to be empowered in the classroom. They were often harshly criticized, proven to be wrong, and muted in the classroom. After a while, middle-class students started feeling superior to their lower-class peers and demonstrate surpassing behaviors. As a result, the class was segregated into three parties: teacher, middle-class students, and lower-class students.

Power relations in the 1-C class were constructed mainly by the authority of the classroom teacher. Similar to other studies (Gilbert, 2021; Charteris, Jenkins, Bannister-Tyrrell, & Jones, 2017), Kubra Teacher’s status was above all students in the classroom, and she was the one distributing power share among students. The segregation in the classroom was the echo of teacher attitude (Bleicher, 2014; Matias & Zembylas, 2014). Middle-class students were favored above lower-class ones, and they have presented a bigger share of power in the classroom. The study reveals the entailment of informing teachers about inequalities in classroom. The first place to do this is teacher training programs and faculties of education with a clear emphasis of power distribution in classrooms, especially in the course “Sociology of Education.” Thus, graduate programs and research on sociology of education could be supported by the government or institutions. Also, research suggest that in-service teacher training programs contribute democratic teacher–student relationships (Kıldan, 2008) and student empowerment (Çepni & Çoruhlu, 2010; Aksu, 2005), which signal the necessity of in-service teacher training programs. Further research for in-service training for student empowerment in different levels of class and types of schools is recommended.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Büşra TOMBAK-İLHAN

Notes

References

Ahmadi

Hasani

(2018) Capturing student voice on TEFL syllabus design: Agenticity of pedagogical dialogue negotiation. Cogent Education 5(1): 1522780.

Aksu

(2005) A Model Proposal for an in-Service Training Program Based on Learner Autonomy. [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University].

Akyüz

(1982) Türk Eğitim Tarihi. Ankara Üniv. Eğitim Bilimleri Fak.

Alexander

R. J.

(2009) Towards a Comparative Pedagogy. In: Cowen

Kazamias

A. M.

(eds), International Handbook of Comparative Education. Germany: Springer, pp. 923–941.

Alexander

R. J.

(2000) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishers.

Alkış Küçükaydın

İşcan

(2017). Suitability of 3rd grade primary school Turkish textbooks and teacher's book to the constructivist Learning Approach. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 5(1), 1–13.

Alpman

P. S.

(2009) Social classes and education. [Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Selcuk University].

Althusser

(2014) İdeoloji ve devletin ideolojik aygıtları [Ideology and ideological state. İthaki Yayınları.

Apple

King

(1991). What do schools teach? In Giroux

Purpel

(Eds), The Hidden Curriculum and Moral Education: Deception or Dicscovery? MrCutchan Publishing Corp.

10.

Arseven

Sahin

Kiliç

(2016) Teachers' Adaptation Level of Student Centered Education Approach. Journal of Education and Practice 7(29): 133–144.

11.

Atatürk

M. K.

(1923) Milli Eğitim. [https://www.ktb.gov.tr/TR-96464/milli-egitim.html]. Government Talks.

12.

Atmaca

(2019) Reproduction of social inequality in education by transferring cultural capital. [Doctoral Dissertation, Eskişehir Osmangazi University].

13.

Bates

F. L.

(1956) Position, role, and status: A reformulation of concepts. Social Forces: 313–321.

14.

Bauman

(2018) Iskarta hayatlar: Modernite ve safraları [Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts]. Can Yayınları.

15.

Bayrak-Özmutlu

(2018) Determinatıon of the Teachers Professional Beliefs, Professional Beliefs’ Seources and Teacher Types on the Basis of Professional Beliefs. Turkey: Ankara University.

16.

Bernstein

(1962) Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. Language and Speech 5(4): 221–240.

17.

Bernstein

(2001) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

18.

Bernstein

(2003) Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language. Psychology Press, 2.

19.

Beyaztaş

D. İ.

Kapti

S. B.

Senemoğlu

(2013) An Analysis of elementary school curricula since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46(2): 319–344.

20.

Bleicher

R. E.

(2014) What counts as successful school subject literacy: differing views from students, teachers, and parents. Critical Studies in Education 55(3): 353–368.

21.

Blumer

(1986) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and Method. CA, USA: University of California Press.

22.

Bourdieu

Passeron

J. C.

(2015). Yeniden Üretim: Eğitim Sistemine İlişkin Bir Teorinin İlkeleri [La Reproduction: Elements pour une Theorie du Systeme D’enseignement] (A. Sümer, Trans.).Heretik.

23.

Bourdieu

(1983) The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics 12(4–5): 311–356.

24.

Bowles

Gintis

(2001) The inheritance of economic status: Education, class and genetics. International Encyclopedia of The Social And Behavioral Sciences: Genetics, Behavior and Society 6: 4132–4141.

25.

Bölükbaş

Gür

B. S.

(2020) Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development 78: 1–9.

26.

Busher

Lawson

Wilkins

, et al (2011) Pedagogy, empowerment and discipline: Comparative perspectives of novice teachers in England and Turkey reflecting on ‘the other. Compare 41(3): 387–400.

27.

Cabi

(2016) Öğretmenlerin Güç Ve Çocuk Algısı ile Öğretmen Çocuk Etkileşimi Arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Boğaziçi University.

28.

Calarco

J. M.

(2018) Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

29.

Charteris

Jenkins

Bannister-Tyrrell

, et al (2017) Structural marginalization, othering and casual relief teacher subjectivities. Critical Studies in Education 58(1): 104–119.

30.

Cingöz

Z. K.

Gür

B. S.

(2020) The effect of economic, social and cultural status on academic achievement a comparison of PISA 2015 and TEOG 2017 results. The Journal of Humanity and Society 10(4): 247–287.

31.

Çandar

Şahin

A. E.

(2013) Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın sınıf yönetimine etkilerine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 44: 109–119.

32.

Çelebi İlhan

E. G.

(2013) Teacher Learning in and from Practice: The Case of a Secondary Mathematics Teacher. [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

33.

Çepni

Çoruhlu

T. Ş.

(2010) Alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme tekniklerine yönelik hazırlanan hizmet içi eğitim kursundan öğretime yansımalar. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 28(28): 117–128.

34.

Demir

(2018) Value Perceptions of Prospective Teachers about Teaching Professional and Their Opinions of Adding These Values in Educatıon Faculties. [Doctoral dissertation, Turkey: Gazi University].

35.

Doerr

N. M.

(2009) ‘Rude speech and ‘ignorant audience’: power of ignorance and language politics at an Aotearoa/New Zealand school. Critical Studies in Education 50(3): 323–335.

36.

Doğan

Ö.

(2018) The Occupational image of Teaching According to Teachers’opinions. [Doctoral dissertation, Turkey: Anadolu University].

37.

Donnelly D., McGarr O. and O’Reilly J. (2013) Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in science education, 43(4): 1571–1592.

38.

Durkheim

(1956) Education and Sociology. Turkey: Simon and Schuster.

39.

Ergin M., Rankin B. and Gkşen F. (2019) Education and symbolic violence in contemporary Turkey. British Journal of sociology of Education, 40(1): 128–142.

40.

Foucault

(1995) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of Prison. Vintage Books.

41.

Foucault

(2001) Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. New Press.

42.

Freire

(2018) Ezilenlerin Pedagojisi [The Pedagogy of the Oppressed] (D. hattatoğlu, Trans). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Publ.

43.

Genç

(2021) Fostering Learner Autonomy: An in-Servıce Teacher Development Program for English Language Teachers. [Doctoral dissertation, Istanbul: Aydın University].

44.

Giddens

(1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. CA: University of California Press.

45.

Gilbert

(2021) Punching the clock: a Foucauldian analysis of teacher time clock use. Critical Studies in Education 62(4): 439–454.

46.

Goffman

(2018) Karşışalşmalar: Etkileşim Sosyolojisinde İki Çalışma. Ankara:m Heretik Yay.

47.

Gross

Mason

W. S.

McEachern

A. W.

(1958) Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

48.

Gümüşlü

(2005) Cumhuriyet Ve Öğretmen: Aydınlanma Politikası Ve Öğretmen Kimliği (1923-1960. Turkey: Hacettepe University. [Unpublished PhD thesis].

49.

Harjunen

(2012) Patterns of control over the teaching–studying–learning process and classrooms as complex dynamic environments: a theoretical framework. European Journal of Teacher Education 35(2): 139–161.

50.

İnal K. and Akkaymak G. (Eds.). (2015) Neoliberal transformation of education in Turkey: Political and ideological analysis of educational reforms in the age of the AKP. Springer.

51.

İncik

E. Y.

Tanrıseven

(2012) Eğitim fakültesi öğretim elemanlarının ve öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci merkezli eğitime ilişkin görüşleri (Mersin Üniversitesi Örneği). Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 8(3): 172–184.

52.

İpekel

İ. İ.

(2021) An Examination of Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions and instructors’ Views on the Effect of Hidden Curriculum in Teacher Education. [Doctoral dissertation, Turkey: Akdeniz University].

53.

Jackson

P. W.

(1990) Life in Classrooms. Teacher’s College Press.

54.

Jin

Ball

S. J.

(2021) Precarious success and the conspiracy of reflexivity: Questioning the ‘habitus transformation’ of working-class students at elite universities. Critical Studies in Education 62(5): 608–623.

55.

Johnston

B. J.

(2007) Class/Culture/Action: Representation, Identity, and Agency in Educational Analysis. In: Galen

J. V.

Nobbit

G. W.

(eds), Late to Class: Social Class in the New Economy. State University of New York Press.

56.

Joshee

(2009) Multicultural education policy in Canada: Competing ideologies, interconnected discourses. In The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 96-108). Routledge.

57.

Karaağaç-Cingöz Z. and Gür B. (2020) The effect of economic, social and cultural status on academic achievement a comparison of PISA 2015 and TEOG 2017 results. Journal of Humanity & Society 10 (4): 247–288.

58.

Karaömerlioğlu

M. A.

(1998) Köy enstitüleri üzerine düşünceler. Toplum ve Bilim 76: 56–85.

59.

Kaysılı

(2020) Okul kültürünün sosyal inşası. Pegem Akademi.

60.

Kıldan

A. O.

(2008) The Effects of in-Service Training Practices for Preschool Teachers in Line with the Constructivist Approach on Teacher-Child and Teacher-Parent Relationships. [Doctoral dissertation, Turkey: Gazi University].

61.

Kivisto

(2018) Capital as power and the corporatisation of education. Critical Studies in Education 59(3): 313–329.

62.

Koç

(2006) Yapılandırmacı sınıflarda öğretmen-öğrenen rolleri ve etkileşim sistemi. Eğitim ve Bilim 31(142): 54–64.

63.

Kutluer

M. U.

(2021) Examination of the Relationship between the Autonomy Levels of Primary School Teachers and Their Behaviors Supporting Student Autonomy. [Master’s Thesis, Turkey: Ege University.

64.

Lareau

(2003) Unequal Childhoods: Class. Race, and Family Life, pp. 198–199.

65.

Lareau

(2015) Cultural knowledge and social inequality. American sociological review 80(1): 1–27.

66.

Maden

Durukan

Akbaş

(2011) Primary school teachers' perceptions of student centered teaching. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8(16): 255–269.

67.

Matias

C. E.

Zembylas

(2014) ‘When saying you care is not really caring’: Emotions of disgust, whiteness ideology, and teacher education. Critical Studies in Education 55(3): 319–337.

68.

Mead

G. H.

(2021) Zihin, Benlik Ve Toplum (Mind, Self and Society). Heretik Publishing.

69.

Mehan H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. London: Harvard University Press.

70.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2020) Milli Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2019/’20. MONE.

71.

Ministry of National Education (2005) İlköğretim 1-5. Sınıf Programları Tanıtım El Kitabı. Ankara: MEB, Talim Ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü Basım Evi.

72.

OECD (2019) Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

73.

OECD (2008) Highlights from Education At A Glance 2008: The Economic Benefits of Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/berlin/42244848.pdf

74.

OECD (2020) Education Policy Outlook: Turkey. Paris: OECD Publishing

75.

Okumuş

(2021) Improving student-centered activity design skills of pre-service science teachers: an action research. Milli Eğitim Dergisi 50(229): 93–127.

76.

Pace J. L. and Hemmings A. (Eds.). (2008) Classroom authority: Theory, research, and practice. London: Routledge.

77.

Patrinos H. A., Psacharopoulos G. and Tansel A. (2019) Returns to investment in education: The case of Turkey. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 12238, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.

78.

Read

(2008) ‘The world must stop when I’m talking’: gender and power relations in primary teachers’ classroom talk. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(6): 609–621.

79.

Sarı

(2012) Sense of school belongıng among elementary school students. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal 41(1): 1–11.

80.

Sedden

(2001) Review essay: Revisiting inequality and education: A reminder of class; a retrieval of politics; a rethinking of governance. Critical Studies in Education 42(2): 131–144.

81.

Silva

Neves

I. P.

(2007) Power and control in the classroom: Understanding students' disruptive behaviours. Pedagogies: An International Journal 2(4): 205–231.

82.

Stacey

(2016) Middle-class parents’ educational work in an academically selective public high school. Critical Studies in Education 57(2): 209–223.

83.

Suna

H. E.

Tanberkan

Bekir

G. Ü. R.

, et al (2020) Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society(61): 41–64.

84.

Şahin

Ş.

(2020) Compassionate Love, Democracy and Student -centered Education Perceptions of Students, Teachers and School Principals. [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Turkey: Duzce University Institute of Social Sciences.

85.

Şeker

(2015) Quality of Life index: A Case Study of İstanbul. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, pp. 1–15.

86.

Tanık

(2020) Examining the Attitude and Qualification Levels of Classroom Teachers towards the Constructivist Education Model. [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Turkey: Kırıkkale University Institute of Social Sciences.

87.

Tatar

Ceyhan

(2018) Development of pre-service science teachers' constructivist-oriented teaching practices. Elementary Education Online 17(1): 207–222.

88.

Taylor

Robinson

(2009) Student voice: Theorizing power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 17(2): 161–175.

89.

TEDMEM (2019). Eğitimde Eşitlik: Toplumsal Hareketliliğin Önündeki Engelleri Aşmak. (Accessed date 11 08 2021). https://tedmem.org/mem-notlari/degerlendirme/egitimde-esitlik-toplumsal-hareketliligin-onundeki-engelleri-asmak

90.

Teo

T. W.

Osborne

(2014) Understanding accountability from a microanalysis of power dynamics in a specialized STEM school. Critical Studies in Education 55(2): 229–245.

91.

TSI (2021a) İşgücü istatistikleri, Eylül 2021 . Turkey: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-Eylul-2021-37483

92.

TSI (2021b) Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması. Turkey: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Income-and-Living-Conditions-Survey-2020-37404

93.

Tualaulelei

(2021) Agency and power in classroom names and naming practices. Ethnography and Education 16(1): 18–30.

94.

Trkiye Byk Millet Meclisi. (1926) Maarif Teşkilatı Kanunu (Nu: 789), pp. 4–300.

https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/KANUNLAR_KARARLAR/kanuntbmmc004/kanuntbmmc004/kanuntbmmc00400789.pdf

95.

Şengönül

(2007) Toplumumuzda Eğitimin Dikey Hareketliliğe Etkisi (İzmir’de Profesyonel Meslek Sahibi Bireyler Üzerine Bir Araştırma). Turkey: Ege University. [Unpublished PhD thesis].

96.

United Nations Development Programme (2020) Human Development Index Ranking. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-human-development-index-ranking

97.

Willis

(1981) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. London, UK: Routledge.

98.

Winograd

(2002) The Negotiative Dimension of Teaching: Teachers Sharing Power with the Less Powerful. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(3): 343–362. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00073-7

99.

Torun-Hakverdi

(2014) Eğitim Ve Toplumsal Hareketlilik İlişkisine Dair Biyografik Bir Araştırma. Turkey: Ankara University. [Unpublished PhD thesis].

100.

Yıldız

Gündüz

(2019) Maarif: transformation of a concept in the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the nineteenth century. History of Education 48(3): 275–296.

101.

Yılmaz

(2007) Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf içi Disiplini Sağlamada Kullandıkları Ödül Ve Ceza Yöntemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Yeditepe University.

102.

Zamora-Poblete

Gil-Madrona

Méndez-Hinojosa

L. M.

, et al (2020) Meanings of pedagogical authority in future teachers in Spain and Latin America. Understandings in education students from Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Spain (Significados de la autoridad pedagógica en futuros profesores y profesoras de Iberoamérica. Comprensiones en estudiantes de pedagogía de Chile, Colombia, Venezuela y España). Culture and Education 32(2): 242–271.

The reproduction of inequality in Turkey: Power distribution in a primary class*

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Inequality in Education and Turkey District

Power in the hands of the teacher, the figure of dignity

First day of school—predetermined positions

Days go by: rules and rules

The power of the teacher for inequalities

Inherited Status: Language and Parental Reference

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References