Fadeeva (2007) has indicated before “the importance of education for development is reflected in numerous international declarations, national and regional policies and development programmes” (p. 246). However, the nature of labor force necessities and so the nature of education are  changing due to the shift on global economy which is now widely based on knowledge and information technologies as a result of globalization (Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002). For that reason, many large scale educational reforms conducted in different countries with the hope of increased competitiveness in the global market (Sahlberg, 2006). Similar thoughts can be seen in Turkish educational context (Karadeniz, 2013) which yielded a large scale of educational reform in 2012. However Karadeniz (2013) and Güven (2012) argues that the sudden reform that causes many differences in Turkish educational system had not been widely discussed in society with related stakeholders such as scholars and the infrastructure was not adequate.

In this reform, one of the important changes was about the years of compulsory education which has been increased from eight years to twelve years alongside with some other important changes (Güven, 2012). The sudden inclusion of upper secondary schools into the compulsory education, not surprisingly, means increased number of students in schools. As the schooling ratio in 2011-2012 educational year was 98.67 for primary schools and 67.37 for secondary schools (TUİK). In 2011-2012 educational year 4756286 students were having education in secondary schools. However, within three years schooling ratio in secondary schools reached   to 79.37 with 5691071 of students indicating 19.65 per cent increase in the number students having secondary education (TUİK).

This data implies increased student numbers, in other words crowd in secondary education. But this change brings to mind the Leithwood and Jantzi’s study (2009) that favors smaller educational institutions. In their review, they presents studies that school size has an effect on academic achievement, equitable distribution of learning, costs and cost-efficiency, teacher turnover, teacher attitude,  attendance or truancy and retention or dropping out, course-taking patterns, participation, identification, and connection with school, extracurricular participation and other student outcomes such as physical safety and social behaviors, (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009). Some of these factors are directly related with school discipline. As Cotton (1996) concludes misbehaviors are less likely to be occurring in smaller schools (Cited in Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009).  Haller (1992) argues that misbehaviors of students can be faced in larger schools more often especially if they are located in the small rural districts.  Meanwhile it should be noted that there are some contradictory results on school size and misbehavior (Ma, 2010). In a study regarding bullying in schools Ma (2010) has found that bullying in schools can be seen more in large cities and size of the school has a little effect.

 Due to the sudden reform in Turkish Educational System that caused a rapid increase on the number of the students, this study aims to investigate its effect on discipline problems in schools in small rural districts of a small city in Turkey.

The main research question of this study is to investigate if there is any increase on misbehaviors of the students in secondary schools?

Is there any change on the number of the students due to the school reform in 2012?

Is there any significant increase on the misbehaviors of the students after the reform in 2012?

Is there any difference on misbehaviors with respect to school type after reform in 2012 (general high school vs vocational schools and etc.)?

Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change? A comparative approach. Comparative education review, 46(1), 1-9. Chicago Fadeeva, Z. (2007). From centre of excellence to centre of expertise: regional centres of expertise on education for sustainable development. Social learning, 245. Chicago Güven, İ. (2012). The 4+ 4+ 4 school reform bill and the FATIH Project: Is it a reform. Elementary Education Online, 11(3), 556-577. Haller, E. J. (1992). High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school consolidation issue? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 145-156 Karadeniz, C. B. (2013). Öğretmenlerin 4+ 4+ 4 zorunlu eğitim sistemine ilişikin görüşleri. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 10(40), 34-53. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of educational research, 79(1), 464-490. Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Individual and school characteristics of victims and offenders. School effectiveness and school improvement, 13(1), 63-89. Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259-287. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.