Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Productivity Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conduct a two-stage (DEA and regression) analysis of the efficiency of New Zealand secondary schools. Unlike previous applications of two-stage semi-parametric modelling of the school “production process”, we use Simar and Wilson’s double bootstrap procedure, which permits valid inference in the presence of unknown serial correlation in the efficiency scores. We are therefore able to draw robust conclusions about a system that has undergone extensive reforms with respect to ideas high on the educational agenda such as decentralised school management and parental choice. Most importantly, we find that school type affects school efficiency and so too does teacher quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Simar and Wilson (1999a, b, 2000) and Kneip et al. (2003).

  2. Simar and Wilson (2007) state that 100 replications are “typically sufficient.” We experimented with 500 instead of 100 replications but found no improvements.

  3. We attempted 5,000 and 10,000 replications; however, regressions converged for about only half the replications.

  4. The authors would like to express their thanks to the staff of the Data Management Unit of The New Zealand Ministry of Education, especially Cheryl Remington and Amanda Borich, as well as to Senior Policy Analyst Martin Connelly, for their assistance.

  5. Because of the different possible ways they can be interpreted, our results do not allow us to suggest either increasing or decreasing preferential funding.

  6. The average school roll in our sample is only 732 and schools of over 2,000 students are very rare.

References

  • Bates JM (1997) Measuring local education authority performance: a frontier approach. Econ Educ Rev 10:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalos P (1997) An examination of budgetary inefficiency in education using data envelopment analysis. Financ Account Manage 13:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncombe W, Miner J, Ruggiero J (1997) Empirical evaluation of bureaucratic models of inefficiency. Public Choice 93:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education Review Office (2003) ERO school and early childhood education reports. http://www.ero.govt.nz, Education Review Office, Wellington

  • Engert F (1996) The reporting of school district efficiency: the adequacy of ratio measures. Public Budgeting Financ Manage 8:247–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120:253–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske EB, Ladd H (2000) When schools compete: a cautionary tale. Brookings Institute Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadley G (1962) Linear programming. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA

  • Hanushek EA (2003) The failure of input-based schooling policies. Econ J 113(485):F64–F98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek EA (2005) The economics of school quality. Ger Econ Rev 6(3):269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Lewin AY, Minton AW (1986) Determining organizational effectiveness: another look and an agenda for research. Manage Sci 32(5):514–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizala A, Romaguera P, Farren D (2002) The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Appl Econ 34:1533–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003a) Teacher census survey. http://www.minedu.govt.nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003b) Introduction to school statistics. http://www.minedu.govt.nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003c) Data description (personal communication). September 2003

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003d) Operational funding. http://www.minedu.govt.nz, Ministry of Education, Wellington

  • New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2003) School statistics for 2002 secondary qualifications. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Wellington

  • Oliviera MA, Santos C (2005) Assessing school efficiency in Portugal using FDH and bootstrapping. Appl Econ 37:957–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero J (1996) On the measurement of technical efficiency in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 90:553–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Simar L (1996) Aspects of statistical analysis in DEA-type frontier models. J Prod Anal 7:177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar L, Wilson PW (1998) Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Manage Sci 44:49–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar L, Wilson PW (1999a) Some problems with the Ferrier/Hirschberg bootstrap idea. J Prod Anal 13:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar L, Wilson PW (2000) A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models. J Appl Stat 27:779–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar L, Wilson PW (2003) Statistical inference in non-parametric frontier models: the state of the art. J Prod Anal 13:49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-sage semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econom 136:31–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson PW (2007) FEAR: a software package for frontier efficiency analysis with R. Socioecon Plann Sci. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2007.02.001

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington AC (2001) An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Educ Econ 9(3):245–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank, without implicating, an anonymous referee of this journal for very helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, QLD, 4558, Australia

    W. Robert J. Alexander

  2. Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Alfred A. Haug & Mohammad Jaforullah

Authors
  1. W. Robert J. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfred A. Haug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Jaforullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Robert J. Alexander.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alexander, W.R.J., Haug, A.A. & Jaforullah, M. A two-stage double-bootstrap data envelopment analysis of efficiency differences of New Zealand secondary schools. J Prod Anal 34, 99–110 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-010-0173-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-010-0173-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation