Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Nonparametric Estimation of Educational Production and Costs using Data Envelopment Analysis

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 214))

  • 823 Accesses

Abstract

A useful starting point for viewing education as a production process was the 1966 report “Equality of Educational Opportunity” for the U.S. Department of Education. This report, more widely referred to as the Coleman Report (1966), provided evidence that socioeconomic factors (student socioeconomic status) are the most important factors in determining educational outcome. While school resources and spending per pupil can positively impact outcomes, the empirical evidence suggests that parental background and student characteristics have a bigger effect. This finding largely explains why equalization of spending per pupil has not removed the large differences in test scores that are still observed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Simar and Wilson (2007) criticize the two-stage models. Banker and Natarajan (2008) and McDonald (2009) prove the consistency of the OLS estimator in the second stage.

  2. 2.

    Of course, as pointed out in that paper, the assumption of monotonicity requires a positive relationship between discretionary inputs and outcomes. The results can best be considered suggestive.

References

  • Afriat, S. N. (1972). Efficiency estimation of production functions. International Economic Review, 13, 568–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Education Act 2013 (No.67, 2013). Commonwealth Parliament, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee (2013). Commonwealth Parliament, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R., & Morey, R. (1986). Efficiency analysis for exogenous fixed inputs and outputs. Operations Research, 34, 513–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R., & Natarajan, R. (2008). Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis. Operations Research, 56, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessent, A., Bessent, E. W., Kennington, J., & Reagan, B. (1982). An application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston Independent School District. Management Science, 28, 1335–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boles, J. (1971). “The 1130 farrell efficiency system – Multiple products, multiple factors. Berkeley, CA: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, D., Malt, R., & Oates, W. (1969). The rising cost of local public services: Some evidence and reflections. National Tax Journal, 22, 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S., Haelermans, C., & Ruggiero, J. (2013). Non parametric estimation of education productivity incorporating nondiscretionary inputs with an application to Dutch schools. European Journal of Operational Research, 234, 809–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, R., Judd, C., & Moock, P. (1979). The determinants of educational outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1981). Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Management Science, 27, 668–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E., & Geske, T. (1990). The economics of education. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2013). National Education Reform Agreement, (NERA), Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Borger, B., Kerstens, K., Moesen, W., & Vanneste, J. (1994). Explaining differences in productive efficiency: An application to Belgian munipalities. Public Choice, 80, 339–358.

    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 

  • Essid, H., Ouellette, P., & Vigeant, S. (2014). Productivity, efficienc and technical change of Tunisian schools: A boostrapped Malmquist Approach with Quasi-fixed Inputs, Omega, 42, 88–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Weber, W. (1989). Measuring school district performance. Public Finance Quarterly, 17, 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120, 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J., & Fieldhouse, M. (1962). Estimating efficient production functions under increasing returns to scale. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 125, 252–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonski, D. (2011). Review of funding for schooling – Final Report (December). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haelermans, C., & De Witte, K. (2012). The role of innovations in secondary school efficiency: Evidence from a conditional efficiency model. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 541–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haelermans, C., De Witte, K., & Blank, J. L. T. (2012). On the allocation of resources for secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haelermans, C., & Ruggiero, J. (2013). Estimating technical and allocative efficiency in the public sector: A nonparametric analysis of Dutch Schools. European Journal of Operational Research, 227(1), 174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(3), 351–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in Public Schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, K., Razzolini, L., & Ross, L. (1998). Bureaucratic choice and nonoptimal provision of public goods: Theory and evidence. Public Choice, 94, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, B., Weidmann, B., & Farmer, J. (2013). The myth of markets in school education. Melbourne: Grattan Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A., & Ruggiero, J. (2011). Nonparametric measurement of productivity and efficiency in education. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-011-0880-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, J., Annett, P., Burke, G., & O’Hanlon, C. (2011). Mapping funding and regulatory arrangements across the commonwealth and states and territories. Melbourne Graduate School of Education: The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. X-efficiency. American Economic Review, 56, 392–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, T., & Yaisawarng, S. (1993). Technical efficiency in New Jersey School Districts. In H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell, & S. S. Schmidt (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency (pp. 271–287). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. (2009). Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses. European Journal of Operational Research, 197, 792–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migué, J., & Bélanger, G. (1974). Towards a general Theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice, 17, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1975). Bureaucrats and politicians. The Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 617–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW DEC (2012). Local Schools, Local Decisions. New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/news/lsld/index.php

  • Ouellette, P., & Vierstraete, V. (2010). Malmquist indexes with quasi-fixed inputs: An application to school districts in Québec. Annals of Operations Research, 173, 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. (1988). Data envelopment analysis, nondiscretionary inputs and efficiency: An alternative interpretation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22, 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. (1991). Resource-use efficiency in Public Schools: A study of connecticut data. Management Science, 37, 1620–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J. (1996a). On the measurement of technical efficiency in the Public Sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 90, 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J. (1996b). Efficiency of educational production: An analysis of New York School Districts. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J. (1998). Non-discretionary inputs in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 111, 461–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J. (2000). Nonparametric estimation of returns to scale in the Public Sector with an application to the provision of educational services. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 906–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J. (2001). Determining the base cost of education: An analysis of Ohio School Districts. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19(3), 268–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J., Duncombe, W., & Miner, J. (1995). Measuring and explaining technical inefficiency in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 403–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J., Miner, J., & Blanchard, L. (2002). Equity vs. efficiency in the provision of educational services. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(3), 642–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, J., & Vitaliano, D. (1999). Assessing the efficiency of public school districts using data envelopment analysis and frontier regression. Contemporary Economic Policy, 17(3), 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva Portela, M. C., & Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., & Wison, P. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., & Mayston, D. (1987). Measuring efficiency in the Public Sector. Omega, 15, 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis, E. (1999). Setting achievement targets for school children. Education Economics, 7, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis, E., & Dunstan, P. (1994). Guiding schools to improved performance using data envelopment analysis: An illustration with data from a local education authority. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 1247–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West Australian Government. (2013). Evaluation of the Independent Public Schools Initiativ (IPS). Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, P. (1990). The simple analytics of slack-maximizing bureaucracy. Public Choice, 67, 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Vincent Blackburn

  2. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Shae Brennan

  3. Department of Economics and Finance, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    John Ruggiero

Authors
  1. Vincent Blackburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shae Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Ruggiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blackburn, V., Brennan, S., Ruggiero, J. (2014). Introduction. In: Nonparametric Estimation of Educational Production and Costs using Data Envelopment Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 214. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7469-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation