Abstract
This paper assessed size effects on efficiency using a nonparametric technique, data envelopment analysis and a Tobit regression analysis, respectively, for public upper secondary schools in Northern Thailand. Results show that school size contributes positively to both urban and rural schools, while class size has a positive effect on urban schools and a negative one on rural schools. A sensitivity analysis reveals the stability of class size and school size effects on efficiency. Policy to improve school efficiency should thus focus on expanding school size while reducing class size for rural schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
OEC, Education in Thailand 2004, Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing. 2004.
B. Watcharasriroj, and J.C.S. Tang, “The effect of size and information technology on hospital efficiency.” J. of Hi. Tech. Manage. Res., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2004.
R. Manandhar, and J.C.S. Tang, “The evaluation of bank branch performance using data envelopment analysis: A framework.” J. of Hi. Tech. Manage. Res., vol.13, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2002.
B. Mante, and G. O’Brien, “Efficiency measurement of Australian public sector organizations: The case of state secondary schools in Victoria.” J. of Ed. Admin., vol. 40 no. 3, pp. 274-296, 2002.
K. Cotton, School size, school climate, and student performance. School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1996.
D. Driscoll, D. Halcoussis, and S. Svorny, “School district size and student performance.” Econ. of Ed. Rev., vol. 22, pp. 193-201, 2003.
J.D. Finn, and C.M. Achilles, “Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions.” Ed. Evalu. and Pol. Ana., vol. 21, no. 2, 97-109, 1999.
UNESCO, Evaluation of the small secondary schools project in Thailand: Building evaluation. Educational buildings occasional paper no. 9. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 1996.
D. Meier, “The big benefits of smallness.” Ed. Lead., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 12-15, 1996.
C.E Bidwell, and J.D. Kasarda, “School district organization and student achievement” Amer.i Socio. R., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 55-70, 1975.
R. Reich, The next American frontier. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
W.F. Fox, “Reviewing economies of size in education.” J. of Ed. Fin.,vol. 6, pp. 273-296, 1981.
C. Howley, “Dumbing down by sizing up: Why smaller schools make more sense–if you want to affect student outcomes.” The Sch. Admin.,vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 24-30, 1997.
D. Monk, and E. Haller, “Predictors of high school academic course offerings: The role of school size.” Amer. Ed. Res. J., vol. 30, pp. 3-22, 1993.
W.J Fowler, Jr., and H.J. Walberg, “School size, characteristics, and outcomes.” Ed. Evalu. and Pol. Ana., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 189-202, 1991.
C. Howley, and R. Bickel, “The influence of scale: Small schools make a big difference for children from poor families.” Amer. Sch. Board J., vol. 189, no. 3, pp. 28-30, 2002.
P. Blatchford, “A systematic observational study of teachers’ and pupils’ behavior in large and small classes.” Lea. and Inst, vol. 13, pp. 569-595, 2003.
M. Bassey, “Inspection, unlike research, is disinterested!,” R. Int, vol. 55, pp. 30-32, 1996.
C.M. Achilles, “Small classes, big possibilities,” Schl. Admin., vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 6-15, 1997.
H. Wenglinsky, When money matters: How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t. Princeton, NJ: The Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, 1997.
G. Bracey, “An optimal size for high schools.” Phi. Del. Kap, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 406, 1998.
T. Kirjavainen, and H.A. Loikkanen, “Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: An application of DEA and Tobit analysis.” Econ. of Ed. Rev., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 377–394, 1998.
S. Bradley, G. Johnes, and J. Millington, “The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England.” Eur. J. of Oper. R., vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 545-568, 2001.
A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units.” Eur. J. of Oper. R., vol. 2, pp. 429-444, 1978.
M.J. Mancebόn, and E. Bandrés, “Efficiency evaluation in secondary schools: The key role of model specification and of ex post analysis of results.” Ed. Econ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 131-152, 1999.
A.C. Soteriou, E. Karahanna, C. Papanastasiou, and M.S. Diakourakis, “Using DEA to evaluate the efficiency of secondary schools: The case of Cyprus.” Inter. J. of Ed. Manage., vol. 12, no. 2, pp 65-73, 1998.
S. Kantabutra, and S. Kantabutra Investigating relationships between shared vision and public school performance: A proposed model, a proceeding paper for International Conference on Making Educational Reform Happen: Learning from the Asian Experience and Comparative Perspectives, September 2004, Bangkok, Thailand, 2004.
S. Kantabutra, and S. Kantabutra, Heightening public school performance through vision-based leadership: A Thai perspective, a proceeding paper for International Conference on Quality Educational Leadership: A Partnership of East and West, November 2005, Bangkok, Thailand, 2005.
S. Kantabutra, and S. Kantabutra, Relating shared vision components to Thai public school performance, a proceeding paper for International Conference on Powerful Visions: Do they work in Asia, the 5th Annual Conference of the Asia Academy of Management, December 2006, Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
P.J. de Lancer, “Decision-making tools for public productivity improvement: A comparison of DEA to cost-benefit and regression analyses. J. of Pub. Bud. Acc. and Fin. Ma., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 625-646, 2000.
T. Coelli, D.S.P Rao, and G.E. Battese, An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Boston: Kluwer, 1998.
D.F. Primont, and Domazlicky, B. “Student achievement and efficiency in Missouri schools and the No Child Left Behind Act.”, Econ. of Ed. Rev., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 77-90, 2006.
V. Prachuabmoh, J. Knodel, S. Prasithrathsin, and N. Debavalya, The rural and urban populations of Thailand: Comparative profiles. Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University Research Report No. 8, Bangkok: Thai Watana Panich Press, 1972.
P. Chalos, and J. Cherian, “An application of data envelopment analysis to public sector performance measurement and accountability.” J. of Acc. and Pub.Pol., vol. 14, pp. 143-160, 1995.
S. Kantabutra, and J.C.S. Tang, “Urban-rural and size effects on school efficiency: The case of Northern Thailand.” Lead. and Pol. in Sch., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 355-377, 2006.
S. Bradley, and J. Taylor, “The effects of school size on exam performance in secondary schools.” Ox. Bul. of Econ. and Stat., vol. 60, pp. 291-324, 1998.
E.A Hanushek, and J.A. Luque, “Efficiency and equity in schools around the world.” Econ. of Ed. Rev., vol. 22, pp. 481-502, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kantabutra, S. (2008). Assessment of Size Effects on Efficiency. In: Iskander, M. (eds) Innovative Techniques in Instruction Technology, E-learning, E-assessment, and Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8739-4_83
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8739-4_83
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8738-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8739-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)