IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/masjnl/v10y2016i7p58.html

A Comparative Study of the Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Primary Education Management between the Provincial Administrative Organisation and the Office of the Basic Education Commission: A Service User Satisfaction Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Kittisak Jermsittiparsert
  • Thanaporn Sriyakul
  • Chayongkan Pamornmast
  • Sudarat Rodboonsong
  • Wanwichit Boonprong
  • Nuanluk Sangperm
  • Vanisa Pakvichai
  • Tanapon Vipaporn
  • Kulnalee Maneechote

Abstract

This research aims to (i) examine the effectiveness and the efficiency of primary education management with regards to the service user satisfaction within 29 primary schools in Thailand, subject under provincial administrative organization (PAO), and their counterparts, which are under the authority of the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC), (ii) to conduct a comparative study concerning the effectiveness and the efficiency generated from the selected schools by specifically handpicking, from each province, one school from the PAO and two from the OBEC, amounting to the total number of 3 schools representing each province. The selected samples can be categorized into those containing similar numbers of students and the ones with certain amounts of operating unit cost (OUC), which are essentially contributing to the sum of 87 schools. The data collection was carried out by drawing samples from the students, the parents, and the members of the concerned communities. Each group comprised 812 subjects, leading to the total number of 2,436 study subjects. The gathered data is analysed using average mean and t-test. The findings indicate that the level of user satisfaction, in general, towards the primary education management of the PAO schools, which is marked as  x= 4.34, is lower than those listed under the supervision of the OBEC. Such result is consistent for either cases where the sample schools contain similar students numbers ( x= 4.41) or the case where the amount of OUC is relatively equal ( x= 4.41). Upon considering and assessing each group, it was found that while the user satisfaction level, as produced from the students and the community members, did not have significant differences, on the other hand, the level of satisfaction that was generated by the parents reveals that the parents’ perception towards primary education management under the PAO authority ( x= 4.36) was placed lower than those of OBEC, which was also applicable to both cases where similar number of students were present ( x= 4.49) and where the OUC was somewhat equivalent ( x= 4.48).

Suggested Citation

  • Kittisak Jermsittiparsert & Thanaporn Sriyakul & Chayongkan Pamornmast & Sudarat Rodboonsong & Wanwichit Boonprong & Nuanluk Sangperm & Vanisa Pakvichai & Tanapon Vipaporn & Kulnalee Maneechote, 2016. "A Comparative Study of the Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Primary Education Management between the Provincial Administrative Organisation and the Office of the Basic Education Commission: A Service User Satisfaction Survey," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(7), pages 1-58, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:10:y:2016:i:7:p:58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/download/58179/31843
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/58179
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:7171 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Stephan Litschig & Kevin M. Morrison, 2013. "The Impact of Intergovernmental Transfers on Education Outcomes and Poverty Reduction," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 206-240, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Manuel E. Lago & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2024. "On the effects of intergovernmental grants: a survey," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 31(3), pages 856-908, June.
    3. Mar√≠a Orduz, 2022. "Effect of educational spending on academic performance under different institutional arrangements," Documentos CEDE 20224, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    4. Diloá Athias & Rodrigo Schneider, 2021. "The impact of political representation on the provision of public goods and services," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 367-381, June.
    5. Yao Wang & Zhecong Zheng & Dawei Feng, 2025. "Historical Clans and Contemporary Human Capital," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 33(3), pages 234-270, May.
    6. Chan, Jeff & Karim, Ridwan, 2023. "Oil royalties and the provision of public education in Brazil," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Mattos, Enlinson & Cardim, Rafael & Politi, Ricardo, 2018. "Grants and Marginal Cost of Public Funding: Empirical Evidence for Local Governments in Brazil," Revista Brasileira de Economia - RBE, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil), vol. 72(4), December.
    8. Marcelo Castro & Enlinson Mattos & Fernanda Patriota, 2021. "The effects of health spending on the propagation of infectious diseases," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2323-2344, September.
    9. Barbosa, Klenio & Ferreira, Fernando, 2023. "Occupy government: Democracy and the dynamics of personnel decisions and public finances," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Lü, Xiaobo, 2015. "Intergovernmental transfers and local education provision — Evaluating China's 8-7 National Plan for Poverty Reduction," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 200-211.
    11. Sean Higgins & Nora Lustig & Whitney Ruble & Timothy M. Smeeding, 2016. "Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62(S1), pages 22-46, August.
    12. Lucie Gadenne, 2017. "Tax Me, but Spend Wisely? Sources of Public Finance and Government Accountability," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 274-314, January.
    13. Fernanda Estevan, 2015. "Public education expenditures and private school enrollment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 48(2), pages 561-584, May.
    14. Irineu de Carvalho Filho & Stephan Litschig, 2013. "The long-run and intergenerational education impacts of intergovernmental transfers," Economics Working Papers 1390, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    15. Bastos, Paulo & Straume, Odd Rune, 2016. "Preschool Education in Brazil: Does Public Supply Crowd Out Private Enrollment?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 496-510.
    16. Maurer, Stephan E., 2018. "Voting Behavior and Public Employment in Nazi Germany," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 1-39, March.
    17. Michihito Ando, 2017. "How much should we trust regression-kink-design estimates?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1287-1322, November.
    18. Tang, Cheng-Tao & Wong, Chun Yee & Alas, Orelie Bathan Delas, 2024. "Effect of intergovernmental transfers on income and poverty rates: Evidence from the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Ferreira, Miguel & Silva, Rui & Cunha, Igor, 2017. "Can Credit Rating Agencies Affect Election Outcomes?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12430, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:masjnl:v:10:y:2016:i:7:p:58. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.