This paper aims to investigate and compare the performance of Italian public high schools (HS) to provide a ranking among different typologies of HS. In this paper, seven criteria that refer to students’ school and academic performance were considered. The sample includes 263 high schools in all Italian regions, grouped into 6 different types of schools and 3 geographic areas. Assuming that all criteria have the same weights, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to derive the ranking among the typologies of schools both at a national level and within each geographic area. The main results show that there are significant differences between HS according to criteria related to school and academic performance both within and between geographic areas. The ranking does not vary, but the intensity of preferences may be different according to the area and/or the criterion considered. The application of PROMETHEE to the same problem confirms the results obtained by the AHP.
How to Cite
school ranking, school performance, academic performance, AHP, Promethee
Aina, C., Baici, E., & Casalone, G. (2011). Time to degree: Students’ abilities, university characteristics or something else? Evidence from Italy. Education Economics, 19(3), 311–325. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2011.585016
Aina, C., Bratti, M., & Lippo, E. (2021). Ranking high schools using university student performance in Italy. Economia Politica, 38, 293–321. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00208-2
Agasisti, T., Murtinu, S. (2012). Perceived competition and performance in Italian secondary school: new evidence from OECD-PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 841–858. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.588314
Bordignon M., Carapella P., & Turati G. (2017). Eduscopio: le determinanti dell'accesso all'informazione, Programma Education FGA Working Paper, n.56, Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli.
Burgess, S., Wilson, D., & Worth, J. (2013). A natural experiment in school accountability: the impact of school performance information on pupil progress, Journal of Public Economics, 106(C), 57-67. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.06.005
Camanho, A.S., Varriale, L., Barbosa, F., & Sobral, T. (2021). Performance assessment of upper secondary schools in Italian regions using a circular pseudo-Malmquist index, European Journal of Operational Research, 289(3), 1188-1208. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.07.050
Corrente, S., Greco, S. & Slowinski, R. (2016). Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process for ELECTRE Tri methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 252, 191-203. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.053
Eide, E., and Showalter, M.H. (1998). The effect of school quality on student performance: A quantile regression approach. Economics Letters, 58, 345–350. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-1765(97)00286-3
Giambona, F., & Porcu, M. (2018). School size and students’ achievement: Empirical evidences from PISA survey data. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 64(C), 66-77. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.12.007
Giannoulis, C., & Ishizaka, A. (2010). A web-based decision support system with ELECTRE III for a personalised ranking of British universities. Decision Support Systems, 48(3), 488–497. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.06.008
Goztepe, K. (2020). Applying Choquet Integral Approach for ranking high school innovative education. International Journal of Electrical Communication Engineering, 6(1), 27-40.
Hart, C.M.D., & Figlio, D.N. (2015). School accountability and school choice: effect on student selection across schools. National Tax Journal, 68(3S), 875–900. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2015.3s.07
Ishizaka, A, & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis methods and software. New York: Wiley.
Jamelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention. Higher Education, 57(3), 373–391. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9161-1
Kelly, A., & Downey, C. (2010). Value-added measures for schools in England: Looking inside the ‘black box’ of complex metrics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 181–198. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9100-4
Lauer, C. (2003). Family background, cohort and education: A French-German comparison based on a multivariate ordered probit model of educational attainment. Labour Economics, 10, 231–251. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0927-5371(03)00007-1
Mancini, P., & Marcarelli, G. (2019). High school choice: how do parents make a choice. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 11(1) 91-109. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v11i1.633
Masci, C., Witte, K. D., & Agasisti, T. (2018). The influence of school size, principal characteristics and school management practices on educational performance: An efficiency analysis of Italian students attending middle schools. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 61, 52–69. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2016.09.009
Nunes, L., Reis, A., & Seabra, C. (2015). The publication of school rankings: A step toward increased accountability? Economics of Education Review, 49(C), 15-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.07.008
Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49-73. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00134132
Saaty, T.L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Interfaces, 24, 41-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19
Saaty, T.L. & Vargas, L.G. (1982). The logic of priorities, Applications in business, energy, health, and transportation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Reprinted in Paperback (1991), Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Schiltz, F, Sestito, P, Agasisit, T., & De Vitte, K. (2018). The added value of more accurate predictions for school rankings. Economics of Education Review, 67, 207-215. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.10.011
Stamenkovic, M., Anic, I., Petrovic, M., & Bojkovic, N. (2016). An ELECTRE approach for evaluating secondary education profiles: evidence from PISA survey in Serbia. Annals of Operational Research, 245, 337–358. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1823-7
Triantaphyllou, E. & Mann, S.H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1), 35–44.
Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2–8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90056-h
Velasquez, M. and Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.
Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria Decision-Aid. Chichester: John Willey & Sons.
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.