Modelling the effectiveness of schools based on their equality of opportunities
İsmail Çimen 1 * , Cemil Yücel 2, Engin Karadağ 3
More Detail
1 Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Türkiye
2 Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye
3 Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
* Corresponding Author


The aim of the study is to identify variables that explain students’ academic performance, determine their relative importance, and consequently, develop an index to distinguish advantaged and disadvantaged schools in pursuit of educational equality. By using this index, we intend to build a model for evaluating schools’ overall performance based on their equality of opportunity. The research is structured within the quantitative research paradigm and the relational research design has been adopted. The research was carried out in 52 secondary schools and analysis were performed on data collected from 1143 students, 1600 teachers and 141 school administrators. While collecting the data, a monitoring exam was used to measure student achievement, which is the dependent variable. Data on independent variables were collected with student, teacher, and administrator surveys. Hierarchical linear modelling and ratio analysis were employed while analysing the data. It was found that student-level variables explain success more than school-level variables. Twenty different variables in total at the student and school level were found to be effective on student achievement. Based on these variables, a school advantages index was created. It has been observed that schools with a high school advantage index are also better off in terms of average school achievement. However, when evaluated together with the school advantages index, it was revealed that the effectiveness order of the schools changed. Our suggestion is that education systems need to have a more holistic approach to evaluate school performances. To provide both fair and radical equality of opportunity, each school should chart a course considering its own conditions regarding the education of disadvantaged students.



  • Ainsworth, J. W. (2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81(1), 117-152.
  • Akyüz-Aru, S. (2020). Investigation of variables affecting science and mathematics success of grade 4 students "TIMSS 2015 status analysis (Publication no. 611893) [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  • Alexander, L. A. (1986). Fair equality of opportunity: John Rawls' (best) forgotten principle. Philosophy Research Archieves, 11, 197-208.
  • Anderson, E. S. (1999). What is the point of equality?. Ethics, 109(2), 287-337.
  • Arneson, R. J. (1989). Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies, 56(1), 77-93.
  • Arneson, R. J. (1999). Against rawlsian equality of opportunity. Philosophical Studies, 93, 77-112.
  • Arneson, R. J. (2011). Luck egalitarianism - a primer. In C. Knight, & Z. Stemplowska (Eds), Responsibility and distributive justice (pp. 24-50). Oxford University Press
  • Arneson, R. J. (2015). Equality of opportunity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425 –469.
  • Berman, J. D., McCormack, M. C., Koehler, K. A., Connolly, F., Clemons-Erby, D., Davis, M. F., Gummerson, C., Leaf, P. J., Jones, T. D. & Curriero, F. C. (2018). School environmental conditions and links to academic performance and absenteeism in urban, mid-Atlantic public schools. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 221, 800-808.
  • Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes, and control. Routledge.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258 ). Greenwood.
  • Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage.
  • Bowen, N. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(3), 319-342.
  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Basic.
  • Brando, N. (2016). Distributing educational opportunities: positionality, equality and responsibility. International Journal of Children's Rights, 24, 575-598.
  • Bray, M., & Kobakhidze, M. (2015). Evolving ecosystems in education: The nature and implications of private supplementary tutoring in Hong Kong. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 45, 465-481.
  • Calvert, J. S. (2014). Luck egalitarianism and educational equality [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
  • Cavanagh, M. (2002). Against equality of opportunity. Oxford University Press.
  • Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18, 321-336.
  • Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics, 99, 906-944.
  • Cohen, G. A. (2009). Why not socialism. Princeton University Press
  • Çiftçi, C. & Çağlar, A. (2014). The effect of socio-economic characteristics of parents on student achievement: Is poverty destiny? International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 155-175.
  • Demirci, A. (2018). Teori ve uygulamalarla veri zarflama analizi. Gazi Publishing.
  • Dworkin, R. (1981). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), 285-345.
  • Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereing virtue: the theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press.
  • Evans, M. D., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. J. (2010). Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28, 171-197.
  • Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
  • Fishkin, J. (2014). Bott lenecks: A new theory of equal opportunity. Oxford University Press.
  • Fortin, N. M., Oreopoulos , P., & Phipps, S. (2015). Leaving boys behind gender disparities in high academic achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 545-579.
  • Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2013). Testing for racial differences in the mental ability of young children. American Economic Review, 103(2), 981-1005.
  • Garcia, E. (2015). Inequalities at the starting gate: cognitive and noncognitive skills gap between 2010-2011kindergarten classmates. Economic Policy Institute.
  • Gegekoğlu, Ş. (2023). Evaluation of address-based school enrollment policy in the context of equal opportunity. Political Economy and Management of Education, 4(1), 23-41.
  • Gelbal, S. (2010). The effect of socio-economic status of eighth grade students on their achievement in Turkish. Education and Science, 33(150), 1300-1337.
  • Greene, J. P., Erickson, H. H., Watson, A. R., & Beck, M. I. (2018). The Play’s the thing: Experimentally examining the social and cognitive effects of school field trips to live theater performances. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 246–254.
  • Greenman, E., Bodovski, K., & Reed, K. (2011). Neighborhood characteristics, parental practices and children’s mathachievement in elementary school. Social Science Research, 40, 1434-1444.
  • Häkkinen, I., Kirjavainen, T., & Uusitalo, R. (2003). School resources and student achievement revisited: New evidence from panel data. Economics of Education Review, 22, 329-335.
  • Hamid, M., Obaidul, R. S., & Asaduzzaman, K. (2009). Private tutoring in English for secondary school students in Bangladesh. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 281-308.
  • Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of ınternational differences in educational achievement. E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of education (Volume III) (pp. 89-200). North Holland.
  • Harris, D. N. (2007). High-Flying schools, student disadvantage, and the logic of NCLB. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 367-394.
  • Heynes, W. H. (2003). A meta analysis: The effects of parental ınvolvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
  • Howe, K. R. (1989). In defense of outcomes-based conceptions of equal educational opportunity. Educational Theory, 39(4), 317-336.
  • Hoxby, C. M. (2001). If families matter most, where do schools come in? In T. M. Moe (Ed.), A primer on America's schools (pp. 89-126). Hoover Institution Press.
  • Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 479-497.
  • Karwath, C., Relikowski, I., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Sibling structure and educational achievement: How do the number of siblings, birth order,and birth spacing affect children's vocabulary competences? Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 26(3), 372-396.
  • Knight, C. (2013). Luck egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass, 8(10), 924-934.
  • Kocaoğlu, M. (2017). John Rawls: Adalet teorisi ve temel kavramları [John Rawls: Theory of justice and its basic concepts]. Imaj Publishing.
  • Lazenby, H. (2016). What is equality of opportunity in education? Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 65-76.
  • Levacic, R., & Woods, P. A. (2002). Raising school performance in the league tables (Part 1): Disentangling the effects of social disadvantage. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 207–226.
  • Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). A randomized study of neighborhood effects on low-income children’seducational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 488–507.
  • Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317-344.
  • Lio, W., & Azen, R. (2013). Determining predictor ımportance in hierarchical linear models using dominance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(1), 3-31.
  • Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2005). Hurley on egalitarianism and the luck-neutralizing aim the luck-neutralizing aim. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 4(2), 249–265.
  • Magnuson, K. A., & Duncan, G. J. (2006). The role of family socioeconomic resources in the black–white test score gap among young children. Developmental Review, 26, 365-399.
  • Mammadov, R., & Çimen, İ. (2019). Optimizing teacher quality based on student performance: A data envelopment analysis on PISA and TALIS. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 767-788.
  • Marks, G. (2006). Family size, family type and student achievement: Cross-national differences and the role of socioeconomic and school factors. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(1), 1-24.
  • Marks, G. (2008). Are father's or mother's socioeconomic characteristics more important influences on student performance? Recent ınternational evidence. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 293-309.
  • Martins, L., & Veiga, P. (2010). Do inequalities in parents’ education play an important role in PISA students’ mathematics achievement test score disparities? Economics of Education Review, 29, 1016-1033.
  • Mason, A. (2001). Equality of opportunity, old and new. Ethics, 111(4), 760-781.
  • Mason, A. (2006). Levelling the playing field: The ideal of equal opportunity and its place in egalitarian thought. Oxford University Press.
  • Matthews, J. S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Early Gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 689–704.
  • Miller, D. (1996). Two cheers for meritocracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(4), 277-301.
  • Mithaug, D. E. (1996). Equal opportunity theory. Sage.
  • Morabito, C., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2015). Equality of opportunities, divergent conceptualisations and their implications for early childhood care and education policies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(3), 456-472.
  • Murphy, J. (2010). The Educator's handbook for understanding and closing achievement gaps. Corwin.
  • Napoletano, T. (2024). Meritocracy, meritocratic education, and equality of opportunity. Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 65-76.
  • Nicoletti, C., & Rabe, B. (2014). Sibling spillover effects in school achievement. The Institute for the Study of Labor.
  • Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y., Hughes, K., & Willms, J. D. (2015). The role of family background and school resourceson elementary school students’ mathematics achievement. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 45(3), 305-324.
  • OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education: supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Author.
  • OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. Author.
  • OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Author.
  • Park, S., Stone, S. I., & Holloway, S. D. (2017). School-based parental involvement as a predictor of achievement and schoollearning environment: An elementary school-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 195-206.
  • Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system some of its functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 29(4), 297-318.
  • Patterson, R. (2013). Finland – a model of teacher professionalism. In J. Morris, & R. Patterson (Eds), Around the world: The evaluation of teaching profession (pp. 29-40). The New Zealand Initiative.
  • Pogge, T. (2007). John Ralws: His life and theory of justice. Oxford University Press.
  • Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.
  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
  • Roemer, J. E. (1992). Providing equal educational opportunity: Public vs. voucher schools. Social Philosophy & Policy, 9(1), 291-309.
  • Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity.Harvard University Press.
  • Scheffler, S. (2003). What is egalitarianism? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(1), 5-39.
  • Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Wößmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. KYKLOS, 61(2), 279-308.
  • Segall, S. (2013). Equality and opportunity. Oxford University Press.
  • Sher, G. (2010). Real-world luck egalitarianism. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(1), 218-232.
  • Shields, L., Newman, A., & Satz, D. (2017). Equality of educational opportunity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences instudents' ICT literacy. Educational Research Review, 27, 205-217.
  • Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
  • Swan, D. W. (2014). The effect of informal learning environments during kindergarten on academic achievement during elementary school [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Teodorovic, J. (2011). Classroom and school factors related to student achievement: What works for students? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 215-236.
  • Tezcan, M. (2015). Eğitim sosyolojisi [Educational sociology]. Anı Publishing.
  • UNESCO. (2019). The technical cooperation group on the indicators for SDG 4. Author.
  • Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor. Teachers College Press.
  • Woessmann, L. (2004). How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the US. CESifo Working Papers.
  • Yeşilyurt, E. & Say, D. (2016). Factors affecting success of high school students in Turkey. Ege Academic Review, 16(3), 541-554.
  • Yıldırım, C.S. & Kalman, M. (2023). School improvement experiences of school principals working in low socio-economic environments: A narrative ınquiry. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 40(2), 195-226.
  • Yücel, C., Boyacı, A., Demirhan, G. & Karatasş, E. (2013). Evaluation of administrative functionality and ınvestigation of problems in the terms of economic, social and cultural capitals: “enrollment zone” (hinterland) practice in national education organizational system. Educational Management in Theory and Practice, 19(1), 135-151.
  • Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2018). Equalising schooling, unequalising private supplementary tutoring: Access and tracking through shadow education in China. Oxford Review of Education, 44(2), 221-228.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.