Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 63, Issue 11, pp 1516–1533 | Cite as

The efficiency of public and publicly subsidized high schools in Spain: Evidence from PISA-2006

  • M-J Mancebón
  • J Calero
  • Á Choi
  • D P Ximénez-de-Embún
General Paper

Abstract

This paper compares the efficiency of Spanish public and publicly subsidized private high schools by data envelopment analysis (DEA), employing the results provided by a hierarchical linear model (HLM) applied to PISA-2006 (Programme for International Students Assessment) microdata. The study places special emphasis on the estimation of the determinants of school outcomes. The educational production function is estimated through an HLM that takes into account the nested nature of PISA data. Inefficiencies are then measured through DEA and decomposed into two types: managerial (related to individual performance), and programme (related to structural differences between management models), following the approach adopted by Silva Portela and Thanassoulis. Once differences in students’ backgrounds, school resources and individual management inefficiencies are removed, the results reveal that Spanish public high schools are more efficient than their publicly subsidized private equivalents.

Keywords

efficiency educational finance resource allocation PISA 

References

  1. Abburrà L (2005). As good as the others. Northern Italian students and their peers in other European regions. Istituto Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte, November.Google Scholar
  2. Banker R, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30 (9): 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker R, Charnes WW, Cooper JS and Thomas DA (1989). An introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis with some of its models and their uses. Research in Government & Non-Profit Accounting 5: 125–163.Google Scholar
  4. Barbetta GP and Turati G (2003). Efficiency of junior high schools and the role of proprietary structure. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 74 (4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedi AS and Garg V (2000). The effectiveness of private versus public schools: The case of Indonesia. Journal of Developmental Economics 61 (2): 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bessent AM and Bessent EW (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 16 (2): 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettinger EP (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review 24 (2): 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boussofiane A, Dyson RG and Thanassoulis E (1991). Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 52: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun H, Jenkins F and Grigg W (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling. Report 2006-461. National Center for Education Statistics: Washington DC.Google Scholar
  10. Bryk AS and Raudenbusch SW (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education 97 (1): 65–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calero J and Escardíbul JO (2007). Evaluación de servicios educativos: el rendimiento en los centros públicos y privados medido en PISA-2003. Hacienda Pública Esp 183 (4): 33–66.Google Scholar
  12. Calero J and Waisgrais S (2009). Factores de desigualdad en la educación española. Una aproximación a través de las evaluaciones de PISA. Papeles de Economía Española 119: 86–99.Google Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Cooper W and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnes A, Cooper W and Rhodes E (1981). Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Management Science 27 (6): 668–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E and Nicaise I (2010). Efficiency and equity in private and public education: A nonparametric comparison. European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2): 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiswick BR and Debburman N (2004). Educational attainment: Analysis by immigrant generation. Economics of Education Review 23 (4): 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chubb JE and Moe TM (1990). Politics, Markets and American School. Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Coleman J, Campbell E, Hobson C, McPartland J, Mood A, Weinfeld F and York R (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Coleman J, Hoffer T and Kilgore S (1982). Secondary School Achievement. Public, Catholic and Private Schools Compared. Basic Books, Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
  20. Cooper WW, Seiford LM and Zhu J (2004a). Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper WW, Seiford LM and Zhu J (2004b). Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer: Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corten R and Dronkers J (2006). School achievement of pupils from the lower strata in public, private government-dependent and private government-independent schools: A cross-national test of the Coleman-Hoffer thesis. Educational Research and Evaluation 12 (2): 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Witte K, Thanassoulis E, Simpson E, Battisti G and Charlesworth-Mayet A (2010). Assessing pupil and school performance by non-parametric and parametric techniques. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61 (8): 1224–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dyson RG, Allen R, Camanho AS, Podinovski VV, Sarrico CS and Shale EA (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 132: 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dronkers J (2008). Education as the backbone of inequality- European education policy: Constraints and possibilities. In: Becker F, Duffek K and Mörschell T (eds). Social Democracy and Education. The European Experience. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung: Berlin, pp 50–135.Google Scholar
  26. Dronkers J and Robert P (2008). Differences in scholastic achievement of public, private government-dependent and private independent schools. A cross-national analysis. Education Policy 22 (4): 541–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farley J (2006). School integration and its consequences for social integration and educational opportunity. In: Heckmann F and Wolf R (eds). Immigrant Integration and Education. The Role of State and Civil Society in Germany and the US. EFMS: Bamberg, pp 56–67.Google Scholar
  28. Fertig M (2003). Who's to blame? The determinants of German Students’ achievement in the PISA 2000 study. IZA Discussion Paper Series, no. 739.Google Scholar
  29. Figlio DN and Stone JA (1997). School choice and student performance. Are private schools really better? Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper, no. 1141-97, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  30. Gamoran A (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education 74: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gamoran A (2004). Classroom organization and instructional quality. In: Walberg HJ, Reynolds AJ and Wang MC (eds). Can Unlike Students Learn Together? Grade Retention, Tracking and Grouping. Information Age: Greenwich, CT, pp 141–155.Google Scholar
  32. Golany B and Roll Y (1989). An application procedure for DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 17 (3): 37–250.Google Scholar
  33. Goldhaber DD (1996). Public and private secondary schools. Is school choice an answer to the productivity problem? Economics of Education Review 15 (2): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greene KV and Kang B (2004). The effect of public and private competition on high school outputs in New York State. Economics of Education Review 23 (5): 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanushek EA (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economics Literature 24: 1141–1177.Google Scholar
  36. Hanushek EA (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economics Journal 113: 64–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Markman JM and Rivkin SG (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Economics 18 (5): 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hollingsworth B and Smith P (2003). Use of ratios in data envelopment analysis. Applied Economics Letters 10: 733–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hox J (1995). Applied Multilevel Analysis. TT-Publikaties: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Hughes A and Yaisawarng S (2004). Sensitivity and dimensionality tests of DEA efficiency scores. European Journal of Operational Research 154: 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jiménez E, Lockheed ME and Paqueo V (1991). The relative efficiency of private and public schools in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer 6 (2): 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kao G and Tienda M (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 76 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  43. Kang C (2007). Classroom peer effects and academic achievement: Quasi-randomization evidence from South Korea. Journal of Urban Economics 61 (3): 458–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirjavainen T and Loikkanen H (1998). Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DEA and Tobit analysis. Economics of Education Review 17 (4): 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lubienski C, Weitzel P and Lubienski ST (2009). Is there a ‘consensus’ on school choice and achievement? Education Policy 23 (1): 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lubienski ST and Lubienski C (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Education Research Journal 43 (4): 651–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mancebón MJ 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mancebón MJ and Muñiz MA (2003). Aspectos clave de la evaluación de la eficiencia productiva en la educación secundaria. Papeles de Economía Española 95: 162–187.Google Scholar
  49. Mancebón MJ and Muñiz MA (2008). Public high schools in Spain. Disentangling managerial and programme efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59: 892–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marks G (2005). Accounting for immigrant non-immigrant differences in reading and mathematics in twenty countries. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (5): 925–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meunier M (2008). Are Swiss secondary schools efficient? In: Soguel NC and Jaccard P (eds). Governance and Performance of Education Systems. Springer: Dordrecht, pp 187–202.Google Scholar
  52. Mizzala A, Romaguera P and Farren D (2002). The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Applied Economics 34 (12): 1533–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neal D (1997). The effects of Catholic secondary schooling on educational achievement. Journal of Labor Economics 15 (1): 98–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD (2006). Where Immigrant Students Succeed. OECD: Paris.Google Scholar
  55. OECD (2007). PISA-2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World, 1 (Analysis). OECD: Paris.Google Scholar
  56. OECD (2009a). PISA Data Analysis Manual. OECD: Paris.Google Scholar
  57. OECD (2009b). PISA-2006 Technical report. OECD: Paris.Google Scholar
  58. Opdenakker MC and Van Damme J (2006). Differences between secondary schools: A study about school context, group composition, school practice, and school effects with special attention to public and Catholic schools and types of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17 (1): 87–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perelman S. and Santín D. (2011). Measuring educational efficiency at student level with parametric stochastic distance functions: An application to Spanish PISA results. Education Economics 19 (1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rong X and Grant L (1992). Ethnicity, generation, and school attainment of Asians, Hispanics and Non-Hispanic whites. Sociology Quarterly 33 (4): 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rumberger RW and Larson KA (1998). Towards explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American and language-minority students. Sociology of Education 71 (1): 68–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sander W (1996). Catholic grade schools and academic achievement. Journal of Human Resources 31 (3): 540–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schnepf VS (2008). Inequality of learning amongst immigrant children in industrialised countries. IZA Discussion Paper, no. 3337.Google Scholar
  64. Silva Portela MC and Thanassoulis E (2001). Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. European Journal of Operations Research 132: 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sirin SR (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research 75 (3): 417–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Somers MA, McEwan PJ and Willms JD (2004). How effective are private schools in Latin America? Comparative Education Review 48 (1): 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stevans LK and Sessions DN (2000). Private/public school choice and student performance revisited. Education Economics 8 (2): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thanassoulis E (2001). Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Willms JD (2006). Learning divides: Ten policy questions about the performance and equity of schools and schooling systems. UIS Working Paper, No. 5, UNESCO Institute for Statistics: Montreal.Google Scholar
  70. Wößmann L (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics 65 (2): 117–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Worthington A (2001). An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics 9 (3): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M-J Mancebón
    • 1
  • J Calero
    • 2
  • Á Choi
    • 2
  • D P Ximénez-de-Embún
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Institut d'Economia de Barcelona, University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Economic AnalysisUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations