This study draws on data from 77 and 68 educational systems to conduct a meta-analysis examining the relationship between students’ cultural capital, teacher support, student–teacher relationships, and mathematics achievement. Results show that objectified and institutionalized forms of cultural capital—specifically home possessions (r = .27, p < .0001), parental occupational status (r = .17, p < .0001), and parental education (r = .02 to .03, p < .0001)—are positively associated with student performance, though the strength of these associations varies substantially across national contexts (I2 = 84%–90%). While teacher support (TEACHSUP) and student–teacher relationships (RELATST) do not show significant direct associations with achievement, interaction analyses indicate small but statistically significant moderation patterns. Specifically, teacher support is associated with slight variation in the relationship between home possessions and occupational status and achievement, while student–teacher relationships show similarly modest associations with parental education and home possessions. These effects are small in magnitude (r = .01 to .04) and should be interpreted with caution. Taken together, the findings do not provide clear evidence of compensatory effects and are consistent with multiple interpretations, including slight variation in existing socioeconomic gradients. The results highlight the continued importance of structural resources as the most consistent predictors of achievement and suggest that the equity potential of relational interventions should be interpreted cautiously.
AbtahiY.PlanasN. (2024). Mathematics teaching and teacher education against marginalisation, or towards equity, diversity and inclusion. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 56, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01602-x
2.
BerlinerD. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949–995.
3.
BernardoA. B. (2021). Socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between growth mindset and learning in mathematics and science: Evidence from PISA 2018 Philippine data. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 9(2), 208–222.
4.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HiggingJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111.
6.
BorensteinM.HigginsJ. P.HedgesL. V.RothsteinH. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18.
7.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
8.
BourdieuP.PasseronJ.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Sage.
9.
BowlesS.GintisH. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Basic Books.
10.
BrunnerE.StarJ. R. (2024). The quality of mathematics teaching from a mathematics educational perspective: What do we actually know and which questions are still open?ZDM—Mathematics Education, 56, 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01600-z
11.
BrunnerM.KellerL.StallaschS. E.KretschmannJ.HaslA.PreckelF.LüdtkeO.HedgesL. V. (2023). Meta-analyzing individual participant data from studies with complex survey designs: A tutorial on using the two-stage approach for data from educational large-scale assessments. Research Synthesis Methods, 14(1), 5–35.
12.
BuchmannC.ParkH. (2009). Stratification and the formation of expectations in highly differentiated educational systems. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(4), 245–267.
13.
BukodiE.GoldthorpeJ. H. (2013). Decomposing ‘social origins’: The effects of parents’ class, status, and education on the educational attainment of their children. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 1024–1039.
14.
ChiuM. M. (2010). Effects of inequality, family and school on mathematics achievement: Country and student differences. Social Forces, 88(4), 1645–1676.
15.
ChmielewskiA. K. (2019). The global increase in the socioeconomic achievement gap, 1964 to 2015. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 517–544.
16.
CollinsR. (1979). The credential society: A historical sociology of education and stratification. Academic Press.
17.
DiMaggioP. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review, 47(2), 189–201.
18.
Duru-BellatM. (2004). Social inequality at school and educational policies. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.
19.
EriksonR.JonssonJ. O. (1996). Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective. Westview Press.
20.
EryilmazN. (2025). School leadership support and socioeconomic status inequalities in mathematics and science achievement: Evidence from TIMSS 2019. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 8, 100427.
21.
EryilmazN.Sandoval-HernándezA. (2021). The relationship between cultural capital and the students’ perception of feedback across 75 countries: Evidence from PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101803.
22.
GerberT. P.CheungS. Y. (2008). Horizontal stratification in postsecondary education: Forms, explanations, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 299–318.
23.
HanselmanP. (2018). Do school learning opportunities compound or compensate for background inequalities? Evidence from the case of assignment to effective teachers. Sociology of Education, 91(2), 132–158.
24.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
25.
HeineS. J.KitayamaS.LehmanD. R. (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 434–443.
26.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.
27.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2022). IDB Analyzer (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/data-tools
28.
JacksonM. (Ed.). (2013). Determined to succeed?: Performance versus choice in educational attainment. Stanford University Press.
29.
JacksonP. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
30.
JægerM. M. (2011). Does cultural capital really affect academic achievement? New evidence from combined sibling and panel data. Sociology of Education, 84(4), 281–298.
31.
KunterM.BaumertJ.KöllerO. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.456
32.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
33.
LamS. M.ZhouY. (2022). SES-achievement gaps in East Asia: Evidence from PISA 2003–2018. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 691–710.
34.
LamontM.LareauA. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153–168.
35.
LareauA. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.
36.
LeeH. J.MendozaN. B. (2025). Does parental support amplify growth mindset predictions for student achievement and persistence? Cross-cultural findings from 76 countries/regions. Social Psychology of Education, 28(1), 88.
37.
LeeS. W.ChoiS. (2024). Teachers’ effects on student achievement in the United States from a cumulative perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(7–8), 566–588.
38.
LevelsM.DronkersJ. (2008). Educational performance of native and immigrant children from various countries of origin. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(8), 1404–1425.
39.
LevelsM.Van der VeldenR.Di StasioV. (2014). From school to fitting work: How education-to-job matching of European school leavers is related to educational system characteristics. Acta Sociologica, 57(4), 341–361.
40.
LucasS. R. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642–1690.
41.
MartinD. B. (2009). Mathematics success and failure among African American youth: The roles of sociohistorical context, community forces, school influence, and individual agency. Routledge.
42.
MunkS.ZiernwaldL.HeineJ. H.HolzbergerD. (2024). How generalizable is the relationship between feedback and reading literacy across different competence levels, multilingual learners, and countries? A meta-analytic approach. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 7, 100382.
43.
NasirN. I. S.HandV. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179.
44.
O’ConnorE.McCartneyK. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172
45.
OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
46.
OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
PassarettaG.SkopekJ. (2025). The role of schooling in equalizing achievement disparity by migrant background. Sociology of Education, 98(1), 62–85.
50.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
51.
PuzićS.GregurovićM.KošutićI. (2016). Cultural capital–a shift in perspective: An analysis of PISA 2009 data for Croatia. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(7), 1056–1076.
52.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
53.
ReardonS. F.WeathersE. S.FahleE. M.JangH.KalogridesD. (2024). Is separate still unequal? New evidence on school segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. American Sociological Review, 89(6), 971-1010.
54.
ReayD. (2004). ‘It’s all becoming a habitus’: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431–444.
55.
RoordaD. L.KoomenH. M. Y.SpiltJ. L.OortF. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
56.
RoosH.BaggerA. (2024). Ethical dilemmas and professional judgment as a pathway to inclusion and equity in mathematics teaching. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 56(3), 435–446.
57.
SchneiderT. (2018). Educational attainment processes in a comparative perspective: The role of national education systems. In BeckerR. (Ed.), Research handbook on the sociology of education (pp. 260–275). Edward Elgar Publishing.
58.
SleeterC. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584.
59.
SortkaerB. (2019). Cultural capital and the perception of feedback. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(5), 647–663.
60.
SullivanA. (2001). Cultural capital and educational attainment. Sociology, 35(4), 893–912.
61.
TanC. Y. (2017). Do parental attitudes toward and expectations for their children’s education and future jobs matter for their children’s school achievement?British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1111–1130.
62.
TuretskyK. M.SinclairS.StarckJ. G.SheltonJ. N. (2021). Beyond students: How teacher psychology shapes educational inequality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(8), 697–709.
63.
van VijfeijkenM.van Schilt-MolT.van den BerghL.ScholteR. H.DenessenE. (2023). How teachers handle differentiation dilemmas in the context of a school’s vision: A case study. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2165006.
64.
ViechtbauerW. (2005). Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 261–293.
65.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.
66.
WangM. T.EcclesJ. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002
67.
WentzelK. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202.
68.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
