IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bri/cmpowp/07-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Accurate performance measure but meaningless ranking exercise? An analysis of the English school league tables

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah Wilson
  • Anete Piebalga

Abstract

Parental choice among schools in England is informed by annually published school performance (league) tables. The 2006 league tables included a measure of contextual value added (CVA) for the first time. By explicitly accounting for the characteristics of a school’s intake, CVA should provide a more accurate measure of the impact a school has on its pupils’ progress, i.e. on school effectiveness. In this paper we use UK government administrative data to replicate CVA and other key performance measures in order to investigate the extent to which the current league tables provide the information necessary to support parental choice on the basis of school effectiveness. We find that while CVA does provide a more accurate measure of school performance or effectiveness, school rankings based on CVA are largely meaningless: almost half of English secondary schools are indistinguishable from the national average.

Suggested Citation

  • Deborah Wilson & Anete Piebalga, 2008. "Accurate performance measure but meaningless ranking exercise? An analysis of the English school league tables," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 07/176, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    • Handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:07/176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/workingpapers/wp176.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Propper & Deborah Wilson, 2003. "The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 250-267, Summer.
    2. Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, 2002. "The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Imprecise School Accountability Measures," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 91-114, Fall.
    3. Deborah Wilson & Bronwyn Croxson & Adele Atkinson, 2004. "“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Headteachers’ Responses to the English Secondary School," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 04/107, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    4. Harvey Goldstein & Michael J. R. Healy, 1995. "The Graphical Presentation of a Collection of Means," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(1), pages 175-177, January.
    5. Harvey Goldstein & Simon Burgess & Brendon McConnell, 2007. "Modelling the effect of pupil mobility on school differences in educational achievement," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(4), pages 941-954, October.
    6. Deborah Wilson & Simon Burgess & Adam Briggs, 2011. "The dynamics of school attainment of England’s ethnic minorities," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 681-700, April.
    7. Andy Wiggins & Peter Tymms, 2002. "Dysfunctional Effects of League Tables: A Comparison Between English and Scottish Primary Schools," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 43-48, January.
    8. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Helen Slater & Deborah Wilson, 2005. "Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/128, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    9. Julie Berry Cullen & Randall Reback, 2006. "Tinkering Toward Accolades: School Gaming Under a Performance Accountability System," NBER Working Papers 12286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Jesse M. Rothstein, 2006. "Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1333-1350, September.
    11. John F. Y. Brookfield, 2001. "Predicting the future," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6841), pages 999-999, June.
    12. Harvey Goldstein & Sally Thomas, 1996. "Using Examination Results as Indicators of School and College Performance," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 159(1), pages 149-163, January.
    13. repec:rus:hseeco:122160 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David N. Figlio & Lawrence S. Getzler, 2002. "Accountability , Ability and Disability: Gaming the System," NBER Working Papers 9307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Deborah Wilson, 2004. "Which Ranking? The Impact of a 'Value-Added' Measure of Secondary School Performance," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 37-45.
    16. Meyer, Robert H., 1997. "Value-added indicators of school performance: A primer," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 283-301, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alastair Muriel & Jeffrey Smith, 2011. "On Educational Performance Measures," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 32(2), pages 187-206, June.
    2. Peter M. Jackson, 2011. "Governance by numbers: what have we learned over the past 30 years?," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 13-26, January.
    3. Emily McDool, 2016. "The Effect of Primary Converter Academies on Pupil Performance," Working Papers 2016013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    4. Herresthal, C., 2017. "Performance-Based Rankings and School Quality," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1754, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    5. Juliette Malley & José‐Luis Fernández, 2010. "Measuring Quality In Social Care Services: Theory And Practice," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(4), pages 559-582, December.
    6. Deborah Wilson, 2008. "Exit, Voice and Quality in the English Education Sector," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 08/194, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deborah Wilson & Bronwyn Croxson & Adele Atkinson, 2004. "“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Headteachers’ Responses to the English Secondary School," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 04/107, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    2. Allen, Rebecca & Burgess, Simon, 2013. "Evaluating the provision of school performance information for school choice," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 175-190.
    3. Francisco Pedraja Chaparro & Javier Salinas Jiménez & María del Mar Salinas Jiménez, 2005. "Los indicadores de gestión en el Sector Público," Revista de Economía y Estadística, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Instituto de Economía y Finanzas, vol. 43(2), pages 109-129, Diciembre.
    4. Clare Leaver & Gian Luigi Albano & University College London and ELSE, 2004. "Transparency, Recruitment and Retention in the Public Sector," Economics Series Working Papers 219, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Helen Slater & Deborah Wilson, 2005. "Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/128, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    6. George Leckie & Harvey Goldstein, 2009. "The limitations of using school league tables to inform school choice," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(4), pages 835-851, October.
    7. Lucy Prior & John Jerrim & Dave Thomson & George Leckie, 2021. "A review and evaluation of secondary school accountability in England: Statistical strengths, weaknesses, and challenges for 'Progress 8' raised by COVID-19," CEPEO Working Paper Series 21-04, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Apr 2021.
    8. Cuesta, José Ignacio & González, Felipe & Larroulet Philippi, Cristian, 2020. "Distorted quality signals in school markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Rezende, Marcelo, 2010. "The effects of accountability on higher education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 842-856, October.
    10. Lucy Prior & John Jerrim & Dave Thomson & George Leckie, 2021. "A review and evaluation of secondary school accountability in England: Statistical strengths, weaknesses, and challenges for ‘Progress 8’ raised by COVID-19," DoQSS Working Papers 21-12, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    11. Gian Luigi Albano & Clare Leaver, 2005. "Transparency, Recuitment and Retention in the Public Sector," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/132, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    12. Erwin Ooghe & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "School accountability: can we reward schools and avoid pupil selection?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 359-387, February.
    13. Chiang, Hanley, 2009. "How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(9-10), pages 1045-1057, October.
    14. Gonzalez, Felipe & Prem, Mounu, 2020. "Police Repression and Protest Behavior: Evidence from Student Protests in Chile," SocArXiv 3xk5r, Center for Open Science.
    15. Richardson, J.T., 2015. "Accountability incentives and academic achievement: Distributional impacts of accountability when standards are set low," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Pierre Koning & Karen Wiel, 2012. "School Responsiveness to Quality Rankings: An Empirical Analysis of Secondary Education in the Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 339-355, December.
    17. Aucejo, Esteban & Romano, Teresa & Taylor, Eric S., 2019. "Does evaluation distort teacher effort and decisions? Quasi-experimental evidence from a policy of retesting students," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Helen Simpson, 2009. "Productivity In Public Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 250-276, April.
    19. Carol Propper & Deborah Wilson & Simon Burgess, 2005. "Extending Choice In English Health Care: The implications of the economic evidence," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/133, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    20. Pickery, Jan, 2002. "Contextual effects on the vote in Germany: A multilevel analysis," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 02-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    education; performance measures; ranking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:07/176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cmbriuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.