Educational systems around the world have been increasingly challenged by persistent and widening inequalities, particularly affecting students from disadvantaged backgrounds negatively (Ainscow, 2020; OECD, 2023a). Global and national dynamics related to poverty, migration, and displacement (UNESCO, 2018) and unprecedented levels of mobility within and across nations by diverse racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic groups (Banks, 2008) have intensified those challenges. Consequently, education systems have been under growing pressure to develop more adaptive, inclusive, and effective teaching practices capable of responding to diverse student needs (OECD, 2023b).

In education, disadvantaged groups refer to populations at risk of exclusion from educational opportunities (UNESCO, 2020). In the present study, disadvantage is conceptualized as a multidimensional and intersecting condition shaped by structural, educational, and individual factors. Commonly identified dimensions include socio economic disadvantages, gender inequalities, language, cultural diversity and ethnic background related challenges, lack of educational support, special educational needs or learning difficulties, migration or refugee background, rural or remote location, and health related barriers (European Commission, 2022; Sirin, 2005; UNESCO, 2020). Together, these dimensions constitute the contextual and personal background of disadvantage that informs both the analytical framework and the interpretation of findings.

In response to the complex nature of teaching across diverse contexts, teacher effectiveness, professional development and school leadership in disadvantaged educational settings take on particular importance. Teacher effectiveness is defined as the effect a teacher has on desired student outcomes (Opdenakker, 2023). Teaching effectiveness is thus defined as the effect a teacher’s teaching has on desired student outcomes. Effectiveness emerges through the interaction between individual teacher characteristics, leadership, professional learning, and organizational conditions in which teachers work (King & Newmann, 2001; Fullan, 2007). International comparative research illustrates how teaching practices and support structures are examined within specific national policy contexts, highlighting the importance of contextualized understandings of teacher effectiveness (Maulana et al., 2023). Policy oriented research further emphasizes the role of teacher professional development and school leadership in addressing educational disadvantages and promoting equity. International organizations such as the OECD and the European Commission consistently frame leadership capacity and teacher learning as key policy levers for supporting disadvantaged students at the system level (OECD, 2020; European Commission, 2022).

Building on this body of work, the current study is theoretically grounded in the School Capacity Building tradition (Fullan, 2007; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; King & Newmann, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2020), which conceptualizes teacher effectiveness as an organizational outcome emerging from the interaction between teachers’ individual knowledge and skills and the leadership and professional learning structures within which they work. Complementing this organizational perspective, the study draws on the teacher effectiveness literature which emphasizes the contextual and culturally situated nature of teaching effectiveness (Maulana et al., 2023). These frameworks provide important reference points for understanding that teacher effectiveness does not rely solely on teacher knowledge and skills; teacher development and leadership are crucial inputs; context is decisive in educational implications; contextual profiling is essential, particularly in comparative research; and disadvantage could be addressed as a context.

From this perspective, the present paper focus on “How are teacher effectiveness, professional development, and school leadership framed in relation to disadvantage within recent policy and research documents in the Netherlands and Türkiye?”. The Netherlands and Türkiye represent contrasting governance models in education, particularly in terms of decentralization, school autonomy, and leadership structures. Both systems face increasing diversity due to migration, but they respond to it through very different policy and professional development arrangements.

This study adopts a qualitative comparative document analysis design (Bowen, 2009) to examine how teacher effectiveness, professional development, school leadership roles, and disadvantage are framed in the Netherlands and Türkiye. Document analysis is appropriate for cross-national education research focusing on systematic examination of policy texts, governance structures and organizational priorities across different national contexts (Cardno, 2018). Data collection followed a structured two stage process. In the first stage, documents were identified separately for each country across five predefined categories: 1. legal and policy documents, including laws, regulations, frameworks, and official reports published by governments and relevant ministries. 2. national statistical data and reports published by official national statistical agencies. 3. reports produced by nationally recognized non-governmental organizations. 4. comparative reports published by international authorities such as the OECD, Eurydice, UNESCO, and the European Commission and 5. peer reviewed academic publications from the last two years directly related to teacher effectiveness, professional development, school leadership, and disadvantage. For each category, official institutional websites were systematically searched using predefined keywords (disadvantage, equity, inequity, teacher, professional development, leader/leadership), and an initial document pool was established for each country. Common educational search engines (ERIC, Scopus and Education Research Complete) were consulted selectively to complement official sources. In the second stage, the document corpus was reviewed iteratively to assess analytical relevance. Documents which do not directly inform policy and practices related to topic of research were excluded. Document analysis was structured through a two-step analytical process guided by the theoretical frameworks underpinning the study. First, contextual profiles are developed, capturing how disadvantaged students, teacher professional development, and school leadership are defined, framed, and positioned and treated within national contexts. Building on the contextual profiles, the second step involved a structured cross-national comparison across three system level dimensions derived from the School Capacity Building framework: funding arrangements, school leadership structures, and professional development frameworks (King & Newmann, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2020). The analysis emphasizes comparison by examining how policy goals related to disadvantage are operationalized through different governance mechanisms as policy instruments function differently within distinct governance regimes (Ozga, 2012). The analysis was guided by an analytical scheme derived from the School Capacity Building framework. Analytical reliability was supported through transparent documentation of coding decisions and iterative refinement of the rubric, with calibration checks planned through peer discussion.

This paper is expected to provide a structured, policy informed comparative overview of how systems of the Netherlands and Türkiye conceptualize disadvantage and map teacher development and school leadership within this context. Preliminary comparative findings suggest that the two systems do not primarily differ in their stated commitment to educational equity (OECD, 2022), but rather in the governance architectures through which equity oriented policies are operationalized (OECD, 2023b; European Commission, 2022). In the Turkish context, policy approaches tend to emphasize normative regulation of teacher roles and centrally defined responsibilities (MoNE, 2017: OECD, 2019), while support mechanisms related to disadvantage are less explicitly embedded across funding, leadership, and professional development structures (ERG, 2025; UNESCO, 2021). In contrast, the Dutch system places stronger emphasis on structural alignment, embedding equity considerations within differentiated funding arrangements (Ares Abalde, 2014; Eurydice Nederland, 2025; Ladd & Fiske, 2009), leadership accountability frameworks, and school based professional development policies (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2025; OECD, 2020). As a result, it can be concluded that support for instructional capacity in disadvantaged contexts appears to be more structurally organized in the Netherlands, whereas in Türkiye it relies to a greater extent on the adaptive efforts of individual teachers and school actors within centrally regulated frameworks. This study is expected to contribute to the field of Professional Learning and Development by offering context sensitive, comparative insights into teacher effectiveness, professional development, and school leadership in relation to disadvantaged students. In doing so, the findings are expected to inform and illuminate both theory and practice related to equity oriented educational reform.

Ainscow,M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education:Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1),7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Ares Abalde,M. (2014). School size policies:A literature review. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en Banks,J.A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3),129–139. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317501 Bowen,G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2),27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Cardno,C. (2018). Policy document analysis:A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(4),623-640. ERG. (2025). Education monitoring report 2024. https://egitimreformugirisimi.org/yayinlar/egitim-izleme-raporu-2025/ European Commission. (2022). Education and training monitor 2022. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/117416 Eurydice Nederland. (2025). National reforms in school education. OCW.https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/netherlands/national-reforms-school-education Fullan,M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change(4th ed.). Teachers College Press. Hargreaves,A., & Fullan,M. (2012). Professional capital:Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2025). De staat van het onderwijs 2025. OWC. King,M.B., & Newmann, F.M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2),86–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110383818 Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1),5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Maulana,R., Helms-Lorenz,M., & Klassen,R.M. (Eds.). (2023). Effective teaching around the world:Evidence-based perspectives, policies, and practices. Routledge. MoNE. (2017). General competencies for the teaching profession. General Directorate of Teacher Training and Development. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf OECD. (2019). Working and learning together:Rethinking human resource policies for schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (VolumeII):Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en OECD. (2022). Declaration on building equitable societies through education (OECD/LEGAL/0485). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0485 OECD. (2023a). Equity and inclusion in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en OECD. (2023b). Education at a glance 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en Opdenakker, M.C. (2023). Teacher and teaching behaviour and student motivational outcomes: Critical reflections on the knowledge base and on future research. In R.Maulana, M.Helms-Lorenz, & R.M.Klassen (Eds.), Effective teaching around the world:Evidence-based perspectives, policies, and practices (pp. 29-83). Routledge. Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: Data, inspection and education policy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(3),439-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.735148 Sirin, S.R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 75(3),417-453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report 2019:Migration, displacement and education. https://doi.org/10.54676/XDZD4287 UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020:Inclusion and education. https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989 UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021:Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375490