As it has been realized that education is a key to a long-term economic growth and to reducing social and economic disadvantages, educational inequality and its reflections in the geography have become some of the major issues in many countries. Turkey is in many ways a good example to analyze the relations between class, education, and regional inequalities where education is strongly a class-related issue and there has also been a strong dimension of “geography” as far as the educational provision and performance are considered. The purpose of the article is to contribute to two debates on the relation of education and inequality in Turkey. One is a specific and practical way of understanding about the effect of socioeconomic backgrounds of the students on their educational achievement. The other is an understanding on causal relations based on socioeconomic variables and geographical variations and how these lead to or indeed are partly caused by regional inequalities in Turkey. Using the datasets of PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) database, the datasets of National University Entrance Examination and Census, the article finds that for Turkish students where (the region and the place of residence) and with whom (socioeconomic qualifications of parents) they live are the powerful indicators of academic achievement.
ButlerT.HamnettC. (2007). The geography of education: Introduction. Urban Studies, 44, 1161-1174.
10.
CabreraA. F. (1994). Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 225-256). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
11.
DumanA. (2008). Education and income inequality in Turkey: Does schooling matter?Financial Theory and Practice, 32, 369-385.
12.
DuyganB.GunerN. (2006). Income and consumption inequality in Turkey: What role does education play? In AltugS.FiliztekinA. (Eds.), The Turkish economy: The real economy, corporate governance and reform and stabilization policy. (63-91) London, UK: Routledge Curzon Studies in Middle Eastern Economies.
13.
EcklandB. K.AlexanderK. L. (1980). The national longitudinal study of the high school senior class of 1972. In KerchoffA. C. (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 1, pp. 189-222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
FerreiraH. G.GignouxJ.AranM. (2011). Measuring inequality of opportunity with imperfect data: The case of Turkey. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 651-680.
15.
FotheringhamA. S. (1997). Trends in quantitative methods I: Stressing the local. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 88-96.
16.
FotheringhamA. S.BrunsdonC.CharltonM. E. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
17.
FotheringhamA. S.CharltonM.BrunsdonC. (1996). The geography of parameter space: An investigation of spatial non-stationarity. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10, 605-627.
18.
FotheringhamA. S.CharltonM.BrunsdonC. (1997). Measuring spatial variations in relationships with geographically weighted regression. In FischerM. M.GetisA. (Eds.), Recent developments in spatial analysis: Spatial statistics, behavioural modelling, and computational intelligence. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
19.
FotheringhamA. S.CharltonM.BrunsdonC. (2001). Spatial variations in school performance: A local analysis using geographically weighted regression. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 5, 43-66.
20.
GoldthorpeJ. H. (1980). Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
HuangY.LeungY. (2002). Analyzing regional industrialization in Jiangsu province using geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems, 4, 233-249.
23.
LallR.CampbellM. J.WaltersS. J.MorganK. (2002). A review of ordinal regression models applied on health-related quality of life assessments. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 11, 49-67.
24.
LynchK.O’riordanC. (1998). Inequality in higher education: A study of class barriers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 445-478.
25.
MaloutasT. (2007). Middle class education strategies and residential segregation in Athens. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 49-68.
26.
MillerH. J. (2004). Tobler’s first law and spatial analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 284-289.
27.
MooreR. (2004). Education and society: Issues and explanations in the sociology of education. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
28.
NelsonR. R.PhelpsE. S. (1966). Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. The American Economic Review, 56, 69-75.
PengC. Y.LeeK. L.IngersollG. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 3-14.
31.
PinkW. T.NoblitG. W. (Eds.). (1995). Continuity and contradiction: The futures of the sociology of education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
32.
RafteryA. E.HoutM. (1993). Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in Irish education, 1921-75. Sociology of Education, 66, 41-62.
33.
SmithsJ.HoşgörA. G. (2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 545-560.
34.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). Preventing social exclusion. London, England: Author.
ToblerW. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region”. Economic Geography, 46(2): 234-240.
40.
TomulE. (2007). The change in educational inequity in Turkey: A comparison by region educational planning. A Journal Dedicated to Planning, Change, Reform, and the Improvement of Education, 16(3), 16-25.
41.
TomulE. (2011). Measuring regional inequality of education in Turkey: An evaluation by Gini index. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 133-143.
