1

Turkish students at Prussian high schools in imperial Germany

Historical Issues

Andreas Hoffmann

Department of Education, Georg-August-University, Gottingen

Germany

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Hamburg, 2003

Network 17: History of Education (Session 5B)

Summary

Taking the Ilfeld grammar school as a case study of the beginning 20th century, this contribution deals with Turkish students who had been sent by the Ministry of Education, Ottoman Empire, to attend Prussian high schools for two years before returning to their home country in order to become teachers. Based on archival material for the province of Hanover, particular attention is paid to the difficulties the Prussian have had when they tried to take up responsibility for the education of Turkish students within a German environment.

Introduction

One of the most important tasks concerning schooling in Germany is the dealing with cultural heterogeneity. Thus, cultural heterogeneity at German schools is not a phenomenon that first turned up in the second half of the 20th century. Due to trends of globalisation in relations of trade, the responsible agents of school matters had to cope with the situation of integrating foreign students into German school lessons from the end of the 19th century on.

This contribution deals with the - until now - hardly perceived transfer of German culture through Prussian educational institutions in connection with the German-Turkish relationships between 1910 and 1912 by using a case reconstruction. The centre of attention follows out a reconstruction of the history of communication between the following three institutions, all of them concerning the schooling of Turkish students at Ilfeld grammar school:

  1. the Prussian ministry of education
  2. the regional school administration of the province of Hanover and
  3. the school administration of a Prussian grammar school

I would like to take the question into consideration whether today’s analytical approach towards of multicultural studies can be used for interpretation of this special historic case reconstruction. Basis of my research are so far non-published documents of the regional school administration of the province of Hanover, stored in the state archive of Lower Saxony. By using this report, I would first like to outline briefly the history of development of the German-Youngturkish cultural relationships.

In a second step - after introducing the involved actors of this special case - I am going to reconstruct the history of communication between the institutions being responsible for schooling of Turkish students.

From the background of multicultural studies I would finally like to outline first interpretations of the results of the historic reconstruction.

German-Youngturkish cultural relationships

At the end of the 19th century the relationships between Germany and the Ottoman empire started to become more intensive. For German foreign policy, which was marked by the Imperial Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), the Ottoman empire, being autocratically ruled by Sultan Abdülhamid II. (1876-1909), meant to be an area of expansion for German imperialism. Beside the political and military influence - recognizable in the fact that German generals instructed the Ottoman army - the economical influence also increased, culminating in the construction of the Bagdad-railway. From the perspective of Abdülhamid II. inviting European instructors for consulting and advising served the national interests more than sending Turkish students abroad, as Mustafa Gencer described (Gencer 2002, 38).

Under the hamidic power developing opposition consisted of different political groups. The Youngturks first built a reservoir for different oppositional movements, not a united Party. The Youngturks mainly demanded a federative and liberal state with a constitution. Nevertheless, this opinion lasted only until 1909, after the Youngturkish revolution from 1908 and during the liberal pro-british and federalist government. The following Youngturkish government, however, strengthened centralist trends and was increasingly influenced by the army. Being socialized in France, England or Switzerland, most of the political agents of the Youngturks first behaved reserved against the German empire (Gencer 2002, 44). After some time, however, ground for common political interests between the Youngturkish and the German government was laid. While a division of the Ottoman empire - performed by the colonial states England and France - seemed to become more and more probable, the Youngturks were interested in preserving the boarders of the empire. Regarding this point the Youngturks´ interests were supported by the German foreign policy, the latter being interested in strengthening Turkey in order to restrict Russia´s radius of influence.

The Youngturks thought the reform of the school system and the teachers´ education to be a sociopolitical key, which could be used to avoid the decay of the Ottoman empire. Therefore, between 1908 and 1918 they consequently passed several laws and decrees concerning reformation of the education system (Gencer 2002, 78). In the run-up to the - for school matters relevant - process of codification comparative studies of educational institutions had taken place in Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Belgium, Romania and Bulgaria, as the minister of classes, Şükrü Bey, said retrospectively (Gencer 2002, 78).

Concerning the history of the German-Turkish transfer of culture and education, the relevant literature focusses on three main aspects I would like to outline briefly:

  1. Educational trips journeys to Germany - performed by the Ottoman elite - were mentioned as well as.
  1. German reformers of education and German teachers working in the Ottoman empire and
  1. German-Turkish institutions of education.

Starting with the first aspect - educational journeys - it has to be mentioned that the Ottoman general director of the middle education system, Maslihiddin Adil Bey, visited more than 100 German educational institutions during his two performed educational journeys. Taking his insights into consideration the Ottoman empire was recommended to keep its own history and culture alive while reciping German education, as did Japan. In his Turkish literary work "Das deutsche Bildungsleben" Adil Bey recommended to send Turkish students to German seminaries for teachers, but mainly to institutions for education of deafmutes and blind children (Gencer 2002, 98).

I would now like to move on to the second aspect. Having observed positive developments in the modernization of the Turkish army by consulting German advisors, the Youngturkish government wished the same positive developments regarding the Ottoman education system. In 1914, on request of the Youngturkish government Prof. Dr. Schmidt, a German expert on school affairs, was send to Constantinople by the German foreign office in Berlin . He functioned as an advisory council in the Turkish ministry for school matters. One of his tasks was the reorganization of the Turkish school system following German pattern (Gencer 2002, 100). In order to improve the conditions of the Ottoman educational system for teachers´ training in 1917 and 1918, Mr. Schmidt managed to send 25 seminarists each year to seminaries in Prussia and Baden (Gencer 2002, 103).

The third aspect deals with German-Turkish institutions of education. The German-Turkish association in Berlin, having its counterpart in Constantinople, organized the German work at school in the Ottoman empire. Founded in 1914, the German-Turkish association took over the organization of work at school from other German institutions like the Anatolian railway association (Gencer 2002, 206).

Following Gencer´s study, delegation of Turkish students to Germany took place only before the outbreak of war and remained only in form of limited initiatives (Gencer 2002, 273). After the outbreak of war especially Turkish apprentices/trainees were sent to German vocational schools and companies.

These three briefly outlined aspects of German-Turkish transfer of culture based on one system of lessons (Unterrichtswesen) after 1912.

In this respect the now following account has to be considered as a - so far not known - supplement of Mustafa Gencer´s research in history of education.

The actors

In 1910 the Ottoman school administration intended to arrange the schooling of some chosen Turkish students at Prussian high schools and contacted therefore the German government. After absolving high school these 17-18 year old students where selected to be introduced into the neohumanistic German education in order to become teachers in their home country later on.

The ministry for education in Berlin – also responsible for clerical and medical issues – agreed to this request. The correspondences between the ministry for education and the regional school administration authority reveals the ministers personal involvement concerning the success of this project.

The portfolio of the regional school administration in Hanover – so called Provinzial-Schul-Kollegium (PSK) – included the superintendence over high schools for boys and girls and teachers seminary for elementary schools.

In the past the grammar school Ilfeld (“Klosterschule Ilfeld”) was among the leading educational establishments of this region. During the time of reformation the monastery Ilfeld was transformed into a protestant school for boys. From the beginning 18. century until the fall of the kingdom of Hanover the school mainly served as a recruiting place for rising generations for the officials and officers. These students therefore belonged to the nobility and upper class. In contrast to urban grammar schools which where controlled by local authorities, the Ilfeld grammar school was controlled by royal government, as was the well known Saxonian (later Prussian) grammar school Schulpforte. Both of them functioned as boarding schools. The absence of the both lowest classes were characteristic for this type of school.

Headmaster Dr Schreiber led this school between 1908 and 1916. In the literature his kind of leadership is described as calm but tough (Kleinschmidt 1923, 19).

Little is known about the two Turkish students Ibrahim Sabri and Djewad representing individual actors which are mentioned in archival documents.

The reconstruction of correspondences between the actors

In November 1910 Headmaster Schreiber sent a letter to the regional school administration in Hanover mentioning the arrival of those both Turkish boys at Ilfeld grammar school and their accommodation in the boarding house. The director later on asked also for permission for lodging them in the boarding house and furthermore for their sit-in at lessons. Without information about origin, age, religion and moral behaviour (“sittliche Führung”) the regional school administration wasn’t able to take over responsibility for both taking part at lessons and accommodation. Their idea was to arrange a place for stay at a teacher’s family ( NHStA Hann. 130, Nr. 473).

In an additional letter the regional school administration informed the minister in Berlin about the arrival of the Turkish students and asked politely for some further information about the way of integration of Turkish students at Prussians schools. The minister explained that he entered into negotiations with directors of chosen grammar-schools involving the regional school administration due to lack of time. In the ministers opinion the Turkish students should mainly get private schooling during their first year besides attending regular lessons. In their second year they could predominantly participate in regular classes. The minister finally demanded of the regional school administration that the schooling of Turkish students should be supported especially (NHStA Hann. 130, Nr. 473).

In November 1910 the regional school administration turned to director Schreiber at Ilfeld school regarding their accommodation at the boarding school. Two reasons against lodging them in the boarding school were mentioned:

  1. The student’s moral behaviour was still unknown.
  2. The parents of the other (German) students might have objections to the admission of the Turkish students.

The last decision concerning this matter was up to the director, conceded the regional school administration.

Approximately one month later – on December 13th 1910 – the minister informed the regional school administration about the way other Prussian schools solved the problem of integrating Turkish people in their lessons: They attended lessons in French, mathematics and physics and proved themselves to be highly efficient in these subjects (NHStA Hann. 130, Nr. 473). Taking this experience into consideration the minister recommended the same practice at Ilfeld to the regional school administration. Whether the ministers recommendations have been put into practice and if so have been successful is uncertain.

Besides the regional school administration, the school directors also received rare informations about how many schools in Prussia where involved in this German-Turkish cultural transfer. Concerning the scholarship the Turkish students received from the Ottoman Ministry of Education, the director of Ilfeld school needed to know to whom an income tax had to be paid. He intended to treat his Turkish student in the same way like other Prussian schools dealt with this problem. Not knowing these other schools he wrote to the regional school administration for instructions. Except for the notification about one more grammar-school in Goslar being responsible for two more Turkish students the regional school administration couldn’t help him in addition (NHStA Hann. 130, Nr. 473). Probably the regional school administration itself wasn’t informed by the ministry in Berlin which schools in other Prussian provinces integrated Turkish students.

In April 1911 the minister let the regional school administration know that Hacki Bey Galandjizade – a member of consulate general in Berlin – was instructed by the Ottoman ministry of Education to supervise the circumstances of schooling, including the Turkish students behaviour and progress (NHStA Hann. 130, Nr. 473). The regional school administration got order to influence the director of Ilfeld school to answer the inquiry of the Turkish diplomat unconditionally.

Reading the last documents of this sequence, one discovers that after finishing the audit of school the Turkish student Djewad continued his studies at Berlin University following the instructions of Hacki Bey Galandjizade. The second Turkish student had order to study another year in Ilfeld before starting studies at Berlin University.

First interpretations of correspondences

The reconstruction of the correspondences reveals a lot of relevant aspects concerning the history of education which remain unanswered. Aspects like, for example, the Turkish student’s integration into the specific subjects and into school life are rarely discussed. Documents which could give an answer to these questions don’t exist in the used archive. Furthermore the Turkish diplomats point of view remains unexplored.

It’s doubtful in which way understanding of current multicultural studies can be used for interpretation of historic reconstruction. Leading interest of multicultural studies is the investigation of reactions of educational institutions and individuals on linguistic and cultural diversity. It can be assumed that educational institutions as collective actors orientate themselves towards a traditional monolingual and monocultural pattern inside the institutions (Gogolin 2002, 263). The reconstruction between the correspondences between 1910 – 1912 allows information on educational institutions or rather school administration as collective actors. In the correspondences individual actors appear as agents representing the top of an administration, for instance a school. The way students and teachers coped with the intercultural situation remains unanswered.

From a general perspective the correspondences support the thesis of distinguishable different phases in the newer history of the German school system – partially depending on migration – ; phases in which school had to integrate minorities (Potratz et al 1998). In imperial Germany (1888-1918) in cities like Hamburg foreign students – mainly coming from South America on the basis of economical globalisation – had to be integrated into classes (Hoffmann 2001, 104; Baade 2000, 121). In the case of the Ilfeld grammar school, on the other hand, this unknown situation was caused by changes within the government of two nations. In contrast to current situations at school, in which the existence of cultural and social heterogeneity causes tension, the Turkish students at Ilfeld school belonged to the privileged class.

I would now like to outline three main aspects of correspondences:

  1. The history of communication between the three institutions school, regional school administration and ministry discovers uncertainty of subordinate administrations in acting within a hierarchical system as soon as an unknown situation required a special strategy for integration. Neither the director nor the agents of the regional school administration were prepared for taking on responsibility for lessons and school life of Turkish students. They therefore demanded instructions from the next authority. Especially in a hierarchical and intercultural context those subordinate members of administration expected clear standards. Considering this reconstructed history of interaction, different questions can be deduced for today’s management of education in the intercultural context. How is it possible for school administration authorities to develop intercultural competencies as collective actors in order to be able to take on responsibility for their schools schooling students from different cultures?
  1. Furthermore the historic reflection of the case Ilfeld provides evidence for partially still persisting ideas about a cultural, ethnic and linguistic homogeneity of a states population and school students(Gogolin 2002, 270). The reaction of the regional school administration regarding the Turkish students´ accommodation in the boarding school by the headmaster shows, that the institutional dealing with "strangers" often was shaped by exceptional tolerance or exclusion. The implicit imaginations of the regional school administration was based on the assumption, that protests of German parents against the acceptance of foreign students in the boarding school would be "common reaction".
  1. Has the dealing with Turkish students at that time to be evaluated negatively from today’s point of view? The ministers´ advise to let Turkish students participate soon in lessons in French, mathematics and physics demonstrates a special understanding for existing competencies of the Turkish students.

Summarizing the reflections with regard to the two-year-schooling of the Turkish students a practice was dominating which considered the German-Turkish transfer of culture to be a one-way-street (Baur 2003, 16). In Germany the Prussian school system was regarded as the superior one. Within the chain of reconstruction no clue can be found that the responsible agents of school administration would have allowed any irritation of the German school system from outside.