League tables and school effectiveness: A mathematical model

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 270, Issue 1511, 2003, Pages 113-119

  Hoyle, Rebecca B ^a   Robinson, James C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

League tables; School effectiveness; Value added measures

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; EXAMINATION; GOVERNMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; STANDARD; STUDENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0037460215     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2223     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aitkin, M. & Longford, N. 1986 Statistical issues in school effectiveness. J. R. Star. Soc. A 149, 1-42.
2. Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, C. 1992 Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage.
3. Bowe, R., Gerwitz, S. & Ball, S. 1994 Captured by the discourse? Issues and concerns in researching 'parental choice' Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 15, 63-78.
4. Department for Education 1992 School performance tables, public examination results 1992. London: HMSO.
5. Department for Education and Employment 1996 Primary school performance tables 1996, Key Stage 2 results. London: HMSO.
6. Department for Education and Skills 2000 GCSE/GNVQ additional benchmark information. London: HMSO.
7. Department of Health 2001 NHS performance ratings: acute trusts 2001/01. London: HMSO.
8. Echols, F., McPherson, A. & Willms, J.D. 1990 Parental choice in Scotland. J. Educ. Policy 5, 207-222.
9. Education Week 2001 Quality counts 2001: a better balance. Education Week 20(17) (see http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qco1/).
10. Goldstein, H. 1987 Multilevel models in educational and social research. London: Charles Griffin & Co.
11. Gorard, S. 2000 Education and society justice. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
12. Gray, J. & Wilcox, B. 1995 Good school, bad school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
13. Gray, J., Goldstein, H. & Thomas, S. 2001 Predicting the future: the role of past performance in determining trends in institutional effectiveness at A level. Br. Educ. Res. J. 27, 391-405.
14. Hirsch, D. 1997 What can Britain learn from abroad? In Choice and diversity in schooling.' perspectives and prospects (ed. R. Glatter, P. Woods & C. Bagley), pp. 152-165. London: Routledge.
15. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B. & Michelson, S. 1972 Inequality: a reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
16. Moore, D. & Davenport, S. 1990 Choice: the new improved sorting machine. In Choice in education: potential and problems (ed. W. L. Boyd & H. J. Halberg), pp. 187-223. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
17. Newbold, D. 2000 Italians follow UK lead on testing. Times Educ. Suppl., 20 October 2000, p. 14.
18. NHS Executive 1999a Quality and performance in the NHS: high level indicators. London: HMSO.
19. NHS Executive 1999b Quality and performance in the NHS: clinical indicators. London: HMSO.
20. Plewis, I. & Goldstein, H. 1998 Excellence in schools: a failure of standards. Br. J. Curriculum Assessment 8, 17-20.
21. Reay, D. 1998 Engendering social reproduction: mothers in the educational marketplace. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 19, 195209.
22. Reynolds, D. 1990 School effectiveness and school improvement: a review of the British literature. In Judging standards and effectiveness in education (ed. B. Moon, J. Isaac & J. Powney), pp. 152-169. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
23. UK Government Department of Education and Science 1988 Education Reform Act 1988. London: HMSO.
24. Willms, J. D. 1987 Differences between Scottish educational authorities in their examination attainment. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 13, 211 237.
25. Worpole, K. 1999 Driving forces. Guardian, 8 June 1999, p. 17