Economically Disadvantaged, Incoming Readiness and School Achievement: Implications for Building High-Performing and Effective Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is clearly structured and both hypotheses are transparently defined. Given other research in the field, findings are not surprising. Data consistency and model significance is quite high, especially using the linear regression model.  The paper is not defining limits of the study, which in my opinion should be included. The role of other explanatory variables (X)  and their correlation to other independent variables needs be explained in more details and broader context.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Improved and in Red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Author must upload the final/reviewed version of the paper. The one I started reading contains so much errata that reached me to think it was not the final version. I have read only the 2 first pages and marked 40 requirements.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your comments.

Improved and in Red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Page 3: Penultimate paragraph: It is incomplete
Papanastasiou does not have a comma
The tables do not follow APA format. Table 1 would go better in Method, in a section on participants, since it describes the sample used.
The hypotheses should be at the end of the introduction. Tables 3 and 4 should also go in the Participants section of Method.
The references that appear in discussion should have been presented in the introduction, while the discussion should only refer to these studies, stating to what extent they support or differ from the results obtained in the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Page 3: Penultimate paragraph: It is incomplete  (Now completed)

Papanastasiou does not have a comma  ( the  comma has now been deleted)

The tables do not follow APA format. Table 1 would go better in Method, in a section on participants, since it describes the sample used.

The hypotheses should be at the end of the introduction. Tables 3 and 4 should also go in the Participants section of Method.  (Issues of Tables have been corrected)

The references that appear in discussion should have been presented in the introduction, while the discussion should only refer to these studies, stating to what extent they support or differ from the results obtained in the study. (Some of these have been done but some have been left since they bring in some information needed  in the Conclusion).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I marked some errata on the first version. They were not been revised.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have submitted a Microsoft Word document that has the revisions. This submission notes the changes made in the word document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf