SCHOOL AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE FOR RANKING HIGH SCHOOLS: SOME EVIDENCE FROM ITALY

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 27, 2022
Gabriella Marcarelli
Paola Mancini

Abstract

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

Marcarelli, G., & Mancini, P. (2022). SCHOOL AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE FOR RANKING HIGH SCHOOLS: SOME EVIDENCE FROM ITALY. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i2.948

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 116 | PDF Downloads 94

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

school ranking, school performance, academic performance, AHP, Promethee

References
Aczel, J., & Saaty, T.L. (1989). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93–102. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7

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.
Section
Articles