Yes, but the author is still committing the (deliberate?) error of implying that opportunity is merely a proxy for outcome. So that if the schools in your area are worse than those in mine, you must be subsidised in some way to make up the difference. 

This is the kind of definition-conflation typical of a modern liberal arts education. 

So Teresa invokes the core problem: since we are all born with different abilities, our outcomes are bound to be different *even or especially* given equal opportunity, when equal opportunity is understood to mean that there is no external force ACTIVELY LIMITING us during our lives.

e.g. there is no "national-socialist" government preventing us contracting with each other, nor any modern "social-democratic" government intervening in our contract to promote "equity". 

True equality of opportunity may well be impossible in a democracy in the long run. The U.S. probably got closest, between 230 and 100 years ago.