Theoretical framework

Since the foundation of Turkish Republic ensuring gender equality has been a policy priority a part of the modernization and democratization process of the new nation state (Ceylan, 2010; Çetin, 2003; Gelişli, 2004). Despite the policy efforts, promoting gender equality is still a challenge in Turkey (European Commission, 2018). Girls and women are subject to different forms of inequalities at different stages of their lifetime. They face sexist practices, physical, economic and social discrimination, and sexual violence. Due to traditional practices, girls are forced to unwanted and early marriages, and they are assigned unequal distribution of labor in the family (UN, 2013). Turkey initiated and completed several EU supported projects to ensure gender equality in education showing its commitment to EU accession. However, with social and political winds in the country, gender problems in education gained new dimensions in recent years which make Turkey’s relationship with the EU even more complex.

According to Haspolat (2015), neo-liberal conservative gender policies of the governing party resulted in considerable deteriorations in the social and citizenship status of Turkish women. In Turkish context, gender inequalities are reinforced through certain educational policies and practices based on values and morals of dominant ideology (Sayılan, 2012). Changes in education system, dress code in particular, are closely related to the transformation in the country in the last twenty years (Gür 2016; Gür et al, 2012; Türk Eğitim Sen, 2012). It is prominent to analyze political and social uses of women's dressing as an ideological part of the process to create social groups, to define the place of dominance and power and regulate the relations of obedience in a smooth, proper and legitimate manner (Bahl, 2005; Barnard, 2002). In this context, this study examines the ways dress code policies influence girls’ education and promote particular female identities. To this end, a critical discourse analysis of educational policy documents and news reports on dress code published in the last decade in Turkey was carried out. It was also aimed to examine teachers’ views of public school dress code policies in the last decade in Turkey. The following research questions guided the study:

1-     How is gender identity reflected in educational policy documents on dress code?

2-     How is gender identity reflected in the news reports on dress code?

3-     Are there any discursive indicators of gender inequalities in education embedded in policy documents on dress code?

4-     What are the perceptions of teachers regarding public school dress code policies in the last decade?

Turkey, which is a secular state with predominance of Muslim population, ensured its commitment to secularism through prohibitions to wear headscarves and other religious symbols in educational settings. (Smith, 2007). For this reason, changes in the dress code were mostly criticized for allowing headscarf at primary school (Aydemir,2008; Taneri, Ulutaş and Akgündüz, 2015). Secularist groups argued that headscarf regulation was a part of the attempts to raise a devout generation which limits female freedom under the name of democratization and humanization (Eğitim Sen, 2014; Gürsel, 2014; Yeşilyaprak, 2016). On the other hand, groups and nongovernmental organizations in the conservative camp thought headscarf ban at schools was an undemocratic practice and a significant barrier in front of girls’ education. For this reason, changes in the dress code was considered as a positive improvement in Turkey’s process of modernization and democratization (Eğitim Bir Sen, 2012; Gür 2016; Gür et al, 2012; Türk Eğitim Sen, 2012c). All in all, public school dress code policy is both an important dimension of gender equality discussions and a highly politicized topic in Turkey which necessitates an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon.

Method The study employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a research tool to investigate gender implications of dress code policies embedded in language and information of educational policy documents and print media. Critical discourse analysis as a type of discourse analysis examines the mutual relationship between language and social and political contexts of language use. It is aimed to reveal and interpret different social meanings, norms, values and perspectives embedded in texts, talks and other communicative contexts (Fairclough, 1995; Paltridge, 2013, van Dijk, 2008). Data Sources As the part of a larger project examining gender policy in education in the last decade in Turkey, the present study presented a sample of textual discourse analysis which involved 124 publicly available policy documents published by 12 organizations including the Ministry of National Education (MONE) and a total of 252 newspaper clippings published in 14 different national newspapers in the last decade. In order to examine teachers’ views regarding the effect of dress code policies on girls’ education and teachers’ interpretations of news reports on dress code policies, a total of 13 semi-structured interviews with teachers working at state schools were conducted. Data Analysis According to van Dijk (2008), CDS utilizes any method that is relevant to the aims of its research studies which are also used in discourse studies in general. As the present study involved a broad range of policy documents, an iterative process of document analysis process offered by Bowen (2009) was employed. The analysis started with first-pass document review identifying relevant parts of the textual materials and continued with thematic analysis in which a closer look at the data set took place (Bowen, 2009). A tentative code list was constructed during the preliminary analysis stage and the codes used during the analysis of policy documents were applied to the analysis of news reports and interview transcripts respectively (Bowen, 2009). At the second stage, a thematic analysis with a more focused review of data set took place (Bowen, 2009) and “tentative findings were substantiated, revised, and reconfigured” (Merriam, 2009, p. 178). The researcher re-read and compared emerged codes and categories “to discover commonalities, differences, and similarities” across data sets (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 461). In order to address the reliability concerns, a segment of the data set was coded by both the researcher and another education researcher. The researchers reached over 90% of agreement in assigning codes.

Results The complete analysis of data revealed different aspects of identity formation and gender socialization through school dress code. It was found that dress code policies were designed in line with the rigid codes of dressing outlined for women in Turkish society. Dress code policies reinforced gender discrimination in the society as legislative discourse included differential freedom standards for boys and girls. Namely, making more restrictions on girls’ clothing reinforced gender discrimination and taught young children that objectifying female was acceptable. Changes in the dress code were in line with the recent trend teaching young girls to adopt modest styles of dressing as a symbol of honor. In some of the documents, wearing headscarf was associated with female honor and protection validating male dominance over females. On the other hand, some of the documents criticized headscarf regulation for reinforcing patriarchal values limiting female freedom and sexuality through legislative measures. Dominant discourse promoted conservative and Islamic understanding inviting females to veil once they reach the puberty and encouraged parental control over girls’ dressing. Based on these findings it can be argued that dress code outlined for girls, imposing headscarf in particular, created a hegemonic possession in which government and parents had the authority to regulate girls’ freedom. From the teacher perspective, changes in the dress code created discrimination as dressing like a grown up deprived little girls of their childhood and violated child rights. Similarly, it was argued that veiling was not girls’ personal and free choice but an imposition on little girls by their parents. Teachers also stated that gender differentiated dress code created discriminatory practices at schools on legitimate basis. All in all, it can be concluded that gender biased dress code reinforced female oppression and legitimized men’s control over female body in Turkish context.

Acar, F. (2003). Women’s education. In World Bank., Bridging the gender gap in Turkey: A milestone towards faster socio-economic development and poverty reduction (pp. 32-51). Washington, DC: World Bank. Acar, F., & Ayata, A. (2002). Discipline, success and stability: The reproduction of gender and class in Turkish secondary education. Fragments of culture: The everyday of modern Turkey, 90-111. Arvanitidou, Z. & Gasouka, M. (2013). Construction of gender through fashion and dressing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (11), 111-115. Aydemir, D. (2008). An analysis of the opinions of university students about the current situation of the headscarf dispute in Turkey. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of North Texas, Dallas. Bahl, V. (2005). Shifting boundaries of ‘‘Nativity’’ and ‘‘Modernity’’ in South Asian women’s clothes. Dialectical Anthropology, 29, 85 –121. Esen, Y. (2013). Gender discrimination in educational processes: an analysis on the experiences of studentship. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 757-782. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Gür, B. S. (2016). What Erdoğan really wants for education in Turkey: Islamization or pluralisation?. Al-Jazeera Center for Studies. Retrieved from http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2016/03/160317094912447.html Gürsel, K. (2014). Erdogan Islamizes education system to raise 'devout youth'. Retrieved on Oct. 25th, 2016 from http://www.almonitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/12/turkey-islamize-education-religion.html Harbach, M. J. (2016). Sexualization, sex discrimination, and public school dress codes. University of Richmond Law Faculty Publications, 50, 1039-1062. Paltridge, B. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In Ken Hyland (Eds.), Discourse studies reader: essential excerpts (pp. 89- 109). London: Bloomsbury. Rankin, B. & Aytaç, I. A., (2008). Religiosity, the headscarf, and education in Turkey: An analysis of 1988 data and current implications. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 (3), 273-287. Rankin, B., & Aytaç, I. A. (2006). Gender inequality in schooling: The case of Turkey. Sociology of Education, 79, 25-43. Sancar, S.(2015). Will Islamism be women's rights friendly: Compromising and conflict on women's rights agenda in Turkey. In Abadan-Unat, N. and Mirdal, G. (Eds.) Emancipation in exile: Perspectives on the empowerment of migrant women (pp. 65-100). Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press Smith, R. K. (2007). Religion and education: a human rights dilemma illustrated by the recent ‘headscarf cases’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5 (3), 303-314. Taneri, P. O., Ulutaş, B., & Akgündüz, M. M. (2015). Öğrencilere getirilen kilik kiyafet serbestliğinin okul bileşenleri gözünden incelenmesi (ankara örneği). Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 13(49), 32-60.