Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Assessing the evolution of school performance and value-added: trends over four years



This paper explores the changes in value added (VA) of a sample of schools for cohorts of students finishing secondary education between 2005 and 2008. VA estimates are based on distance measures obtained from DEA models. These measures are computed for each pupil in each school, and evaluate the distance between the school frontier in a given year and a pooled frontier comprising all schools analysed. The school VA is then computed by aggregating the VA scores for the cohort of pupils attending that school in a given year. The ratio between VA estimates for two consecutive cohorts, that attended the school in different years, is taken as the index of VA change. However, the evolution of school performance over time should consider not only the movements of the school frontier, but should also take into account other effects, such as the proximity of the students to the best-practices, represented by the school frontier, observed over time. For that purpose we developed an enhanced Malmquist index to evaluate the evolution of school performance over time. One of the components of the Malmquist index proposed measures VA change, and the other measures the ability of all school students to move closer to their own school best practices over time. The approach developed is applied to a sample of Portuguese secondary schools.


Data envelopment analysis Malmquist index Secondary education School value-added 

JEL Classification

C61 C67 I21 



The authors thank Fundação Manuel Leão, in particular professor Joaquim Azevedo, for allowing the use of the AVES data in this study. The authors also acknowledge the financial support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through project PTDC/GES/68213/2006.


  1. Andersen P, Petersen N (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballou D, Sanders W, Wright P (2004) Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. J Educ Behav Stat 29(1):37–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker R, Das S, Datar S (1989) Analysis of cost variances for management control in hospitals. Res Gov Nonprofit Acc 5:268–291Google Scholar
  4. Berg SA, Frsund FR, Hjalmarsson L, Suominen M (1993) Banking efficiency in the nordic countries. J Bank Financ 17:371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camanho AS, Dyson RG (2006) Data envelopment analysis and malmquist indices for measuring group performance. J Prod Anal 26:23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, Nicaise I (2010) Efficiency and equity in private and public education: a nonparametric comparison. Eur J Oper Res 202(2):563–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman JS, Campbell E, Hobson C, McPartland J, Mood A, Weinfield F, York R (1966) Equality of educational opportunity. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. De Witte K, Thanassoulis E, Simpson G, Battisti G, Charlesworth-May A (2010) Assessing pupil and school performance by non-parametric and parametric techniques. J Oper Res Soc 61:1224–1237Google Scholar
  9. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P (1994) Productivity developments in swedish hospitals: a Malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin A, Seiford L (eds) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications, Kluwer, Boston, pp 253–272Google Scholar
  10. Ferrão M (2009) Sensivity of value added model specifications: measuring socio-economic status. Revista de Educacin 348:137–152Google Scholar
  11. Ferrão M, Goldstein H (2009) Adjusting for measurement error in the value added model: evidence from Portugal. Qual Quant 43:951–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein H, Rasbash J, M Y, G W (1993) A multilevel analysis of school examination results. Oxf Rev Educ 19:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray J, Goldstein H, Jesson D (1996) Changes and improvements in school’s effectiveness: trends over five years. Res Pap Educ 11(1):35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray J, Jesson D, Sime N (1990) Estimating differences in the examination performances of secondary schools in six LEAs: a multi-level approach to school effectiveness. Oxf Rev Educ 16(2):137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grosskopf S, Hayes KJ, Taylor LL, Weber WL (1999) Anticipating the consequences of school reform: a new use of DEA. Manag Sci 45(4):608–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanushek E (1979) Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. J Hum Resour 14(3):351–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanushek E, Taylor L (1990) Alternative assessments of performanc of schools: measurement of state variation in achievement. J Hum Resour 25(2):179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirjavainen T, Loikkanen HA (1998) Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DEA and Tobit analysis. Econ Educ Rev 17(4):377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladd HF, Walsh RP (2002) Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: getting the incentives right. Econ Educ Rev 21(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mancebón M, Bandrés E (1999) Efficiency evaluation in secondary schools: the key role of model specification and of ex post analysis of results. Educ Econ 7(2):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mancebón M, Molinero CM (2000) Performance in primary schools. J Oper Res Soc 51(7):843–854Google Scholar
  22. Mayston D (2003) Measuring and managing educational performance. J Oper Res Soc 54:679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Donoghue C, Thomas S, Goldstein H, Knight T (1997) 1996 DfEE study of value added for 16–18 year olds in England. DfEE Research Series, MarchGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD: (2008) Measuring improvements in learning outcomes: best practices to assess the value-added of schools. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Pastor J, Lovell C (2005) A global malmquist productivity index. Econ Lett 88:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Portela M, Camanho A (2007) Performance assessment of portugese secondary schools. Working paper, Universidade Catolica PortuguesaGoogle Scholar
  27. Portela M, Camanho A (2010) Analysis of complementary methodologies for the estimation of school value-added. J Oper Res Soc 61:1122–1132Google Scholar
  28. Portela M, Thanassoulis E (2010) Malmquist-type indexes in the presence of negative data: an application to bank branches. J Bank Financ 34:1472–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portela M, Thanassoulis E, Horncastle A, Maugg T (2011) Productivity change in the water industry in england and wales: application of the meta-malmquist index. J Oper Res Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Portela MCAS, Thanassoulis E (2001) Decomposing school and school type efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 132(2):114–130Google Scholar
  31. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Raudenbush S, Willms JD (1995) The estimation of school effects. J Educ Behav Stat 20(4):307–335Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Católica PortuguesaPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.School of EconomicsAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations