Research suggests that a country does not need inequity to have high performance. However, such research has potentially suffered from confounders present in between-country comparative research (e.g., latent cultural differences). Likewise, relatively little consideration has been given to whether the situation may be different for high- or low-performing students. Using five cycles of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) database, the current research explores within-country trajectories in achievement and inequality measures to test the hypothesis of an excellence/equity tradeoff in academic performance. We found negative relations between performance and inequality that are robust and of statistical and practical significance. Follow-up analysis suggests a focus on low and average performers may be critical to successful policy interventions.
BolT.Van de WerfhorstH. G. (2013). Educational systems and the trade-off between labor market allocation and equality of educational opportunity. Comparative Education Review, 57, 285–308.
2.
BreakspearS. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 71). Paris: OECD Publishing.
3.
BrunelloG.ChecchiD. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22, 782–861.
4.
BryanM. L.JenkinsS. P. (2015). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32, 3–22.
5.
BurgerK. (2016). Intergenerational transmission of education in Europe: Do more comprehensive education systems reduce social gradients in student achievement?Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 54–67.
6.
ChecchiD. (2006). The economics of education: Human capital, family background, and inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ChecchiD.van de WerfhorstH.BragaM.MeschiE. (2014). The policy response: Education. In SalverdaW.NolanB.MarxI.McKnightA.TóthI. G.van de WerfhorstH. (Eds.), Changing inequalities and societal impacts in rich countries: Analytical and comparative perspectives (pp. 294–327). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
DickeT.MarshH. W.ParkerP. D.PekrunR.GuoJ.TelevantouI. (in press). Effects of school-average achievement on individual self-concept and achievement: Unmasking phantom effects masquerading as true compositional effects. Journal of Educational Psychology.
9.
DupriezV.DumayX. (2006). Inequalities in school systems: Effect of school structure or of society structure?. Comparative Education, 42, 243–260.
10.
FriedmanM. (2002). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
FriedmanM.FriedmanR. (1980). Free to choose. New York, NY: Harcourt.
12.
GansJ.KingS. (2014). Finishing the job: Real world policy solutions in health, education, and transport. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
13.
GoldthorpeJ. H. (2007). On sociology (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
HandcockM.AldrichE. M. (2002). Applying relative distribution methods in R. Seattle, WA: Center for Statistics and Social Sciences, University of Washington. Retrieved from https://www.csss.washington.edu/Papers/wp27.pdf
15.
HandcockM. S.MorrisM. (1999). Relative distribution methods in the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
16.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.MarkmanJ. M.RivkinS. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement?Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527–544.
17.
HanushekE. A.WößmannL. (2005). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequity? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economics Journal, 116, 63–76.
18.
HanushekE. A.WößmannL. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Paris: OECD Publishing.
19.
HoxbyC. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In HoxbyC. M. (Ed.), The economics of school choice (pp. 287–342). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
JakubowskiM.PatrinosH. A.PortaE. E.WisniewskiJ. (2010). The impact of the 1999 education reform in Poland. Washington, DC: World Bank.
21.
JerrimJ.ChmielewskiA. K.ParkerP. (2015). Socioeconomic inequality in access to high-status colleges: A cross-country comparison. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 42, 20–32.
22.
KerckhoffA. C. (1995). Institutional arrangements and stratification processes in industrial societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 323–347.
23.
MaazK.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.BaumertJ. (2008). Educational transitions and differential learning environments: How explicit between-school tracking contributes to social inequality in educational outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 99–106.
24.
MarksG. N. (2006). Are between-and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socio-economic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48, 21–24.
25.
MicklewrightJ.SchnepfS. (2007). Inequalities in industrialised countries. In JenkinsS. P.MicklewrightJ. (Eds.), Inequality and poverty re-examined (pp. 129–145). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2014). Review of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use in schools: Country background report Iceland. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y95pk96d
27.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). PISA 2003 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
28.
OwensA.ReardonS. F.JencksC. (2016). Income segregation between schools and school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1159–1197.
29.
ParkerP. D.JerrimJ.SchoonI.MarshH. W. (2016). A multination study of socioeconomic inequality in expectations for progression to higher education: The role of between-school tracking and ability stratification. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 6–32.
30.
ParkerP. D.MarshH. W.GuoJ.AndersJ.ShureN.DickeT. (2017). An information distortion model of social class differences in math self-concept, intrinsic value and utility value. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000215
31.
PfefferF. T. (2015). Equality and quality in education. A comparative study of 19 countries. Social Science Research, 51, 350–368.
32.
RingarpJ.RothlandM. (2010). Is the grass always greener? The effect of the PISA results on education debates in Sweden and Germany. European Educational Research Journal, 9, 422–430.
33.
RoweE. E.LubienskiC. (2017). Shopping for schools or shopping for peers: Public schools and catchment area segregation. Journal of Education Policy, 32, 340–356.
34.
RyanC. (2013). What is behind the decline in student achievement in Australia?Economics of Education Review, 37, 226–339.
35.
SalcheggerS. (2016). Selective school systems and academic self-concept: How explicit and implicit school-level tracking relate to the big-fish-little-pond effect across cultures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 405–423.
36.
SaporitoS. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181–203.
37.
SimolaH. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455–470.
38.
ThomasV.WangY.FanX. (2001). Measuring educational inequality: Gini coefficients of education (Policy Research Paper 2525). Washington, DC: World Bank.
39.
Van de WerfhorstH. G.MijsJ. J. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428.
40.
WalbergH. J. (2000). Market theory of school choice. Education Week, 19, 46–49.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
