A two-stage double-bootstrap data envelopment analysis of efficiency differences of New Zealand secondary schools

Journal of Productivity Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 99-110

  Alexander, W Robert J ^a   Haug, Alfred A ^b   Jaforullah, Mohammad ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Double boot strapping; Efficiency; Productivity; School finance

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956270687     PISSN: 0895562X     EISSN: 15730441     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11123-010-0173-3     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bates JM (1997) Measuring local education authority performance: a frontier approach. Econ Educ Rev 10: 19-27.
2. Bradley S, Johnes G, Millington J (2001) The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England. Eur J Oper Res 135: 545-568.
3. Chalos P (1997) An examination of budgetary inefficiency in education using data envelopment analysis. Financ Account Manage 13: 55-69.
4. Duncombe W, Miner J, Ruggiero J (1997) Empirical evaluation of bureaucratic models of inefficiency. Public Choice 93: 1-18.
5. Education Review Office (2003) ERO school and early childhood education reports. http://www. ero. govt. nz, Education Review Office, Wellington.
6. Engert F (1996) The reporting of school district efficiency: the adequacy of ratio measures. Public Budgeting Financ Manage 8: 247-271.
7. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120: 253-281.
8. Fiske EB, Ladd H (2000) When schools compete: a cautionary tale. Brookings Institute Press, Washington.
9. Grosskopf S, Hayes KJ, Taylor LL, Weber WL (2001) On the determinants of school district efficiency: competition and monitoring. J Urban Econ 49: 453-478.
10. Hadley G (1962) Linear programming. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.
11. Hanushek EA (2003) The failure of input-based schooling policies. Econ J 113(485): F64-F98.
12. Hanushek EA (2005) The economics of school quality. Ger Econ Rev 6(3): 269-286.
13. Jesson D (2000) The comparative evaluation of GCSE value-added performance by type of school and LEA. The University of York discussion papers in economics, 2000/52, University of York, Heslington.
14. Kirjavainen T, Loikkanen HA (1998) Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DEA and Tobit analysis. Econ Educ Rev 17(4): 377-394.
15. Kneip A, Park BU, Simar L (1998) A note on the convergence of nonparametric DEA estimates for production efficiency scores. Econom Theory 14: 783-793.
16. Kneip A, Simar L, Wilson PW (2003) Asymptotics for DEA estimates in nonparametric frontier models. Discussion paper no. 0317, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
17. Lewin AY, Minton AW (1986) Determining organizational effectiveness: another look and an agenda for research. Manage Sci 32(5): 514-538.
18. Minister of Education (2003) New Zealand schools, Nga Kura o Aotearoa, report of the minister of education on the compulsory schools sector in New Zealand. 2002. Ministry of Education, Wellington.
19. Mizala A, Romaguera P, Farren D (2002) The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Appl Econ 34: 1533-1552.
20. New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (2003) Funding arrangements for independent schools in New Zealand. Report to independent schools of New Zealand by New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Inc), Wellington.
21. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003a) Teacher census survey. http://www. minedu. govt. nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington.
22. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003b) Introduction to school statistics. http://www. minedu. govt. nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington.
23. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003c) Data description (personal communication). September 2003.
24. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003d) Operational funding. http://www. minedu. govt. nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington.
25. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2003) School statistics for 2002 secondary qualifications. http://www. nzqa. govt. nz, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Wellington.
26. Oliviera MA, Santos C (2005) Assessing school efficiency in Portugal using FDH and bootstrapping. Appl Econ 37: 957-968.
27. Ruggiero J (1996) On the measurement of technical efficiency in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 90: 553-565.
28. Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
29. Simar L (1996) Aspects of statistical analysis in DEA-type frontier models. J Prod Anal 7: 177-185.
30. Simar L, Wilson PW (1998) Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Manage Sci 44: 49-61.
31. Simar L, Wilson PW (1999a) Some problems with the Ferrier/Hirschberg bootstrap idea. J Prod Anal 13: 67-80.
32. Simar L, Wilson PW (1999b) Of course we can bootstrap DEA scores! But does it mean anything? Logic trumps wishful thinking. J Prod Anal 11: 93-97.
33. Simar L, Wilson PW (2000) A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models. J Appl Stat 27: 779-802.
34. Simar L, Wilson PW (2003) Statistical inference in non-parametric frontier models: the state of the art. J Prod Anal 13: 49-78.
35. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-sage semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econom 136: 31-64.
36. Wilson PW (2007) FEAR: a software package for frontier efficiency analysis with R. Socioecon Plann Sci. doi: 10. 1016/j. seps. 2007. 02. 001.
37. Woodward LJ, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ (1999) Effects of single-sex and coeducational secondary schooling on children's academic achievement. Aust J Educ 43(2): 142-156.
38. Worthington AC (2001) An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Educ Econ 9(3): 245-268.