Performance assessment of secondary schools: The snapshot of a country taken by DEA

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 63, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1098-1115

  Portela, M C S ^a   Camanho, A S ^b   Borges, D ^a  

^a CBQF CENTRO DE BIOTECNOLOGIA E QUÍMICA FINA LABORATÓRIO ASSOCIADO   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

data envelopment analysis; secondary schools; single weights; weight restrictions

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS;

ACADEMIC ABILITY; FACTOR WEIGHT; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE RANKINGS; SECONDARY SCHOOLS; SINGLE WEIGHTS; SOCIO-ECONOMICS; WEIGHT RESTRICTION;

EDUCATION COMPUTING;

EID: 84863468213     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2011.114     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arnold V, Bardhan I, Cooper W and Kumbhakar S (1996). New uses of DEA and statistical regressions for efficiency evaluation and estimation-With an illustrative application to public secondary schools in Texas. Annals of Operations Research 66: 255-277. (Pubitemid 126729289)
2. Azevedo J (2005). Avaliação das escolas: Fundamentar modelos e operacionalizar processos. Conselho Nacional de Educaçã o, http://www.oei.es/evaluacioneducativa/avaliacao-escolas-con selho-educacao- portugal.pdf.
3. Banker RD, Janakiraman S and Natarajan R (2004). Analysis of trends in technical and allocative efficiency: An application to Texas public school districts. European Journal of Operational Research 154(2): 477-491.
4. Barrow MM (2001). Measuring local education authority performance: A frontier approach. Economics of Education Review 10(1): 19-27.
5. Bessent A and Bessent W (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 16(2): 57-75.
6. Bessent A, Bessent W, Kennington J and Reagen B (1982). An application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston independent school district. Management Science 28(12): 1355-1367.
7. Bradley S, Johnes G and Millington J (2001). The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England. European Journal of Operational Research 135: 545-568. (Pubitemid 32935203)
8. Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-444. (Pubitemid 9402758)
9. Cook WD, Kazakov A, Roll Y and Seiford LM (1991). A data envelopment approach to measuring efficiency: Case analysis of highway maintenance patrols. The Journal of Socioeconomics 20(1): 83-103.
10. Cooper W, Ruiz J and Sirvent I (2007). Choosing weights from alternative optimal solutions of dual multiplier models in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 180: 443-458. (Pubitemid 46123850)
11. De Witte K, Thanassoulis E, Simpson G, Battisti G and Charlesworth-May A (2010). Assessing pupil and school performance by non-parametric and parametric techniques. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61: 1224-1237.
12. Ferrão M (2009). Sensitivity of value added model specifications: Measuring socio-economic status. Revista de Educacin 348: 137-152.
13. Ferrão M and Goldstein H (2009). Adjusting for measurement error in the value added model: Evidence from Portugal. Quality and Quantity 43: 951-963.
14. Gray J (1981). A competitive edge: Examination results and the probable limits of secondary school effectiveness. Educational Review 33(1): 25-35.
15. Hanushek E (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature XXIV: 1141-1177.
16. Kane TJ and Staiger DO (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(4): 91-114.
17. Kirjavainen T and Loikkanen HA (1998). Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: An application of DEA and Tobit analysis. Economics of Education Review 17(4): 377-394. (Pubitemid 128369674)
18. Kuosmanen T (2002). Modelling blank data entries in data envelopment analysis. EconWPA working paper at WUSTL, no. 0210001 (Econometrics).
19. Kuosmanen T, Cherchye L and Sipilainen T (2006). The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: Restricting weight flexibility across firms. European Journal of Operational Research 170: 735-757. (Pubitemid 41607634)
20. MacBeath J and Mortimore P (2001). Improving School Effectiveness. Open University Press: Philadelphia, PA.
21. Mancebón M and Bandrés E (1999). Efficiency evaluation in secondary schools: The key role of model specification and of ex post analysis of results. Education Economics 7(2): 131-152.
22. Mayston D (2003). Measuring and managing educational performance. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54: 679-691.
23. Mizala A, Romaguera P and Farren D (2002). The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Applied Economics 34: 1533-1552. (Pubitemid 34817354)
24. Muñiz MA (2002). Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 143: 625-643.
25. OECD (2005). Education at a Glance, OECD Indicators 2005- Executive Summary. OECD Publishing,http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en-2649- 39263238-35289570-1-101-1,00 .html.
26. OECD (2010). Education at a Glance 2010, OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9610071E.pdf.
27. Oliveira MA and Santos C (2005). Assessing school efficiency in Portugal using FDH and bootstrapping. Applied Economics 37: 957-968. (Pubitemid 40696714)
28. Pereira MC and Moreira S (2007). A stochastic frontier analysis of secondary education output in Portugal. Estudos e Documentos de Trabalho, Banco de Portugal, Working Paper 6/2007.
29. Portela M and Camanho A (2007). Performance assessment of Portuguese secondary schools. Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, Working Paper.
30. Portela M and Camanho A (2010). Analysis of complementary methodologies for the estimation of school value added. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61: 1122-1132.
31. Portela M, Camanho A and Borges D (2011). BESP-Benchmarking of Portuguese secondary schools. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18(2): 240-260.
32. Post T and Spronk J (1999). Performance benchmarking using iterative data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 115: 472-487.
33. Primont DF and Domazlicky B (2006). Student achievement and efficiency inMissouri schools and the No Child Left Behind Act. Economics of Education Review 25: 77-90. (Pubitemid 43033498)
34. Roll Y, Cook WD and Golany B (1991). Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Transactions 23(1): 2-9. (Pubitemid 21651737)
35. Sarrico C and Rosa M (2009). Measuring and comparing the performance of Portuguese secondary schools: A confrontation between metric and practice benchmarking. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58(8): 767-786.
36. Sarrico C, Rosa M and Coelho I (2010). The performance of Portuguese secondary schools: An exploratory study. Quality Assurance in Education 18(4): 286-303.
37. Sengupta JK (1987). Data envelopment analysis for efficiency measurement in the stochastic case. Computers and Operations Research 14(2): 117-129.
38. Thanassoulis E, Portela M and Despic O (2007). DEA-The mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK and Schmidt SS (eds). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth. Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford.
39. Thompson RG, Singleton JFD, Thrall RM and Smith BA (1986). Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16: 35-49.
40. Thompson RG, Langemeier L, Lee C, Lee E and Thrall RM(1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics 46: 93-108.
41. Worthington AC (2001). An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics 9(3): 245-268.