Eğitimde eşitliğin ölçülmesi: Ülkeler arası bir analiz

Öz

Son yıllarda eğitimde eşitliğe yönelik artan ilgiye rağmen eğitimde eşitliği ölçmeye yönelik literatürde boşluk bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerini entegre ederek ülkelerin eğitimde eşitlik performansını değerlendirmektir. Bunun için OECD’nin kapsamlı bir veri setine dayanarak kriterler ağırlıklandırılmış ve 51 ülke eğitimde eşitlik bakımından sıralanmış ve performansına göre kümelenmiştir. Kriterleri ağırlıklandırmak için MEREC, ülkeleri sıralamak için MABAC yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular kapsayıcı okul ortamı sağlama politikasının en yüksek öneme sahip alan olduğunu ortaya koyarken, bunu sırasıyla ekonomik ve sosyal çıktılara katkı, erken çocukluk dönemine yatırım ve temel becerilerin kazandırılması politikaları takip etmiştir. Ülke sıralamalarında İspanya, Avusturya, Danimarka, Almanya ve Norveç üst sıralarda yer alırken, Çekya, Arjantin, Slovakya, Brezilya ve Endonezya alt sıralarda yer almıştır. Bulgular eğitimde eşitliğin sadece kaynakların tahsisi değil psikososyal ortam, liderlik, dijital beceriler ve sosyal refah gibi çok boyutlu faktörlerle sağlanabileceğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca bulgular eğitimde eşitlik için belirli alanlarda çok yüksek performans göstermekten ziyade öncelikli alanlar başta olmak üzere dengeli performansın kritik rolüne işaret eder. Bu çalışma eğitim sistemlerinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik veri temelli bir değerlendirme çerçevesi sunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• eğitim eşitliği
• eğitim
• eşitlik
• ölçme
• çok kriterli karar verme

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik onay Milli Savunma Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu'ndan alınmıştır (Tarih: 23.07.2025, No E-35592990-050.04-5037895).

Measuring educational equity: A cross-country analysis

Öz

Despite the growing interest in educational equity in recent years, there remains a gap in the literature regarding its measurement. The aim of this study is to evaluate countries' performance in educational equity by integrating multi-criteria decision-making methods. Based on a comprehensive dataset from the OECD, the criteria were weighted, and 51 countries were ranked and classified according to their equity performance in education. The MEREC method was used to determine the weights of the criteria, while the MABAC method was employed for ranking the countries. The findings revealed that the policy of providing an inclusive school environment holds the highest importance, followed by contributions to economic and social outcomes, investment in early childhood education, and the development of foundational skills, respectively. In the country rankings, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Norway ranked at the top, while the Czechia, Argentina, Slovakia, Brazil, and Indonesia were positioned at the bottom. The findings indicate that educational equity can be achieved not only through the allocation of resources but also through multidimensional factors such as the psychosocial environment, leadership, digital skills, and social well-being. Furthermore, the results highlight the critical role of balanced performance-particularly in prioritised areas-rather than exceptionally high performance in only a few domains. This study provides a data-driven evaluation framework for assessing education systems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Educational equity
• education
• equity
• measurement
• multi-criteria decision making

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval for this study was obtained from National Defence University Ethics Committee (Date: 23.07.2025, Number: E-35592990-050.04-5037895).

Kaynakça

1. Agasisti, T., Longobardi, S., & Regoli, A. (2017). A cross-country panel approach to exploring the determinants of educational equity through PISA data. Quality & Quantity, 51(3), 1243-1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0328-z
2. Ainscow, M. (2016). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in education: possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-12-2015-0013
3. Alegre, M. À., & Ferrer, G. (2010). School regimes and education equity: some insights based on PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989193
4. Arar, K., & Mifsud, D. (2024). The where, who, and what of poverty in schools: Re-framing the concept from a leadership perspective. Power and Education, 16(3), 328-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438231218377
5. Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431-445. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11429391
6. Brady, L. M., Wang, C., Griffiths, C., Yang, J., Markus, H. R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2024). A leadership-level culture cycle intervention changes teachers’ culturally inclusive beliefs and practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(25), e2322872121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322872121
7. Campos, D. G., Koskinen, A., Munkácsy, B., Rolfe, V., Patsis, P., Tóth, E., Olsen, R. V., Scherer, R., Söldner, L., & Danek, A. H. (2025). Educational inequalities in Europe: A scoping review of longitudinal studies in K-12 education. In T. S. Frønes, A. Pettersen, J. Radišic, & N. Buchholtz (Eds.), Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education (pp. 173-196). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101523
8. Caro, D. H., & Mirazchiyski, P. (2012). Socioeconomic gradients in Eastern European countries: Evidence from PIRLS 2006. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 96-110.

9. Dhakal, S. (2024). Promoting equity and inclusivity: Exploring equitable leadership practices in diverse Nepali schools. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 9(2), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1427917
10. Donaghy, D. (2021). Defining digital capital and digital poverty. ITNOW, 63(1), 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwab025
11. Duarte, J., Bos, M. S., & Moreno, M. (2010). Inequity in school achievement in Latin America: Multilevel analysis of SERCE results according to the socioeconomic status of students. Inter-American Development Bank.
12. Fernández, R., Pagés, C., Szekely, M., & Acevedo, I. (2024). Education inequalities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Oxford Open Economics, 4, i55–i76. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooec/odae013
13. Ferris, R., Clarke, M., Raftery, D., Liddy, M., & Sloan, S. (2022). Digital poverty in a country that is digitally powerful: some insights into leadership of girls’ schooling in India under Covid-19 restrictions. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42, 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2031871
14. Fischer, N., Theis, D., & Zücher, I. (2014). Narrowing the gap? The role of all-day schools in reducing educational inequality in Germany. IJREE–International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 2(1), 13-14. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijree.v2i1.19535
15. Frønes, T. S., Rasmusson, M., & Bremholm, J. (2021). Equity and diversity in reading comprehension-A case study of PISA 2000–2018. In T. S. Frønes, A. Pettersen, J. Radišic, & N. Buchholtz (Eds.), Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education (pp. 305-335). Springer International Publishing Cham.
16. Goudeau, S., & Cimpian, A. (2021). How do young children explain differences in the classroom? Implications for achievement, motivation, and educational equity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620953781
17. Gustafsson, J.-E., Nilsen, T., & Hansen, K. Y. (2018). School characteristics moderating the relation between student socio-economic status and mathematics achievement in grade 8. Evidence from 50 countries in TIMSS 2011. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 57, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.09.004
18. Han, Z., Cui, C., Kong, Y., Li, Q., Chen, Y., & Chen, X. (2023). Improving educational equity by maximizing service coverage in rural Changyuan, China: An evaluation-optimization-validation framework based on spatial accessibility to schools. Applied Geography, 152, 102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102891
19. Hansen, K. Y., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2019). Identifying the key source of deteriorating educational equity in Sweden between 1998 and 2014. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.012
20. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(3), 607-668. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.3.607
21. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications–A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
22. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
23. Kulkarni, A. J. (2022). Multiple criteria decision making: techniques, analysis and applications (Vol. 407). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7414-3
24. Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D. A., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate, school safety, and student achievement and well-being: a review of the literature. Review of Education, 3(2), 103-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043
25. Kyriakides, L., Charalambous, E., Creemers, B. P., Antoniou, P., Devine, D., Papastylianou, D., & Fahie, D. (2019). Using the dynamic approach to school improvement to promote quality and equity in education: A European study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(1), 121-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9289-1
26. Lee, J. (2012). Educational equity and adequacy for disadvantaged minority students: School and teacher resource gaps toward national mathematics proficiency standard. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.519409
27. Li, I. W., & Carroll, D. R. (2020). Factors influencing dropout and academic performance: An Australian higher education equity perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(1), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1649993
28. Lutz, C. (2019). Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.140
29. Maral, M., & Özdemir, A. (2025). A systematic review on multi‐criteria decision‐making methods in educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 3071-3106. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70002
30. Martínez García, J. S., Oinonen, E., Merino Pareja, R., & Perosa, G. (2021). Education and inequality in Finland, Spain and Brazil. In P. López-Roldán & S. Fachelli (Eds.), Towards a comparative analysis of social inequalities between Europe and Latin America (pp. 105-140). Springer.
31. McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia: The role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9197-4
32. McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K., Yang, R., Koepp, A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium-and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17737739
33. McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06533.x
34. Nachbauer, M., & Kyriakides, L. (2020). A review and evaluation of approaches to measure equity in educational outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 306-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1672757
35. NCES. (2023). Education expenditures by country. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country
36. OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility.
37. OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 database. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html
38. OECD. (2024). Education at a glance. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2024_c00cad36-en.html
39. OECD. (2025). Education equity. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/education-equity.html
40. Öztürk, M., Albayrak-Sarı, A., Bağcı, A., Dayıoğlu-Öcal, S., İnce, B. H., & Soysal, N. (2021). The opportunities and challenges of curriculum localisation for the Sustainable Development Goals: Results of the Global Schools pilot study in Türkiye. Global Schools Program of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
41. Pamucar, D., & Cirovic, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
42. Perera, P., Selvanathan, S., Bandaralage, J., & Su, J.-J. (2023). The impact of digital inequality in achieving sustainable development: a systematic literature review. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(6), 805-825. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2022-0224
43. Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018). Returns to investment in education: a decennial review of the global literature. Education Economics, 26(5), 445-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2018.1484426
44. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491
45. Steinmayr, R., Heyder, A., Naumburg, C., Michels, J., & Wirthwein, L. (2018). School-related and individual predictors of subjective well-being and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 16, Article 2631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02631
46. Tan, C. Y., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Information technology, mathematics achievement and educational equity in developed economies. Educational Studies, 43(4), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1277137 TEDMEM. (2025a). Bir bakışta eğitim 2025. https://tedmem.org/yazilar-detay/bi-r-bakista-egi-ti-m-2025-e-i-lk-bakis
47. TEDMEM. (2025b). 2024 eğitim değerlendirme raporu (TEDMEM değerlendirme dizisi 10). Türk Eğitim Derneği.
48. UNESCO. (2024). Global report on early childhood care and education: The right to a strong foundation. https://www.unicef.org/reports/global-report-early-childhood-care-and-education-right-strong-foundation
49. UNESCO. (2025a). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education – all means all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
50. UNESCO. (2025b). World inequality database on education. https://www.education-inequalities.org/
51. UNICEF. (2013). Education equity now!: a regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in CENTRAL and Eastern Europe and the commonwealth of independent states. UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
52. UNICEF. (2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/an-unfair-start
53. UNICEF. (2019). A world ready to learn: Prioritizing quality early childhood education. https://www.unicef.org/reports/a-world-ready-to-learn-2019
54. UNICEF. (2022). Towards a child-centred digital equality framework. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/towards-child-centred-digital-equality-framework
55. UNSD. (2025a). The sustainable development goals extended report 2025. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/extended-report/
56. UNSD. (2025b). The sustainable development goals 2025. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/
57. Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
58. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., & Zhao, J. H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263-2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
59. World Bank. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. https://data360.worldbank.org/en/dataset/WB_LPGD
60. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Delopment of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
61. Zhao, N., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., & Verhaeghe, J. (2012). The quadratic relationship between socioeconomic status and learning performance in China by multilevel analysis: Implications for policies to foster education equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 412-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.08.004
62. Zysberg, L., & Schwabsky, N. (2021). School climate, academic self-efficacy and student achievement. Educational Psychology, 41(4), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1813690