Technical Efficiency of Primary Schools and Its Non-Input Determinants: A Case Study in Assam,North-Eastern India

Abstract

This abstract has measured the technical efficiency of government-aided lower primary schools in Hailakandi district, a disadvantaged and remote region of southern Assam in North-eastern India based on a robust sample of 95 schools covering 718 children. Enrolment, attendance and learning outcomes are taken as output indicators. The results indicate that inputs such as quality of school infrastructure and teachers’ contact hours influence the composite output index positively and significantly. However, among on-input factors, monthly frequency of mid-day meals, average body mass index (BMI) of interviewed children and educational qualifications of teachers have positive influences on school-level technical efficiency, while remoteness and lack of accessibility have a negative influence on the same. The study claims that school performance can be significantly improved if school infrastructure is enhanced by constructing separate and independent classrooms for each grade along with the appointment of teachers up to full capacity.

JEL Codes: C51, C83, D24, I21, I28

Keywords

Lower primary schools learning outcomes school infrastructure technical efficiency non-input factors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aigner

, Lovell

C. K.

, & Schmidt

(1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics , 6(1), 21–37.

Battese

G. E.

, & Coelli

T. J.

(1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics , 20(2), 325–332.

Card

, & Krueger

A. B.

(1996). School resources and student outcomes: An overview of the literature and new evidence from North and South Carolina. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 10(4), 31–50.

Chakraborty

(2009). Efficiency in public education—the role of socioeconomic variables. Research in Applied Economics , 1(1), 1–18.

Datta

, & Neogi

(2013). Reform raises efficiency of oil refining public sector enterprises in India. Indian Economic Review , 48(2), 239–261.

Denaux

Z. S.

(2009). Determinants of technical efficiency: Urban and rural public schools in the state of Georgia. Southwestern Economic Review , 36, 105–115.

Hanushek

E. A.

(1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature , 24(3), 1141–1177.

Hanushek

E. A.

(1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher , 18(4), 45–62.

Hanushek

E. A.

(1996). School resources and student performance. In Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 43–73). Brookings Institution.

10.

Kodde

D. A.

, & Palm

F. C.

(1986). Wald criteria for jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , 54(5), 1243–1248.

11.

Lachin

J. M.

(1981). Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials , 2(2), 93–113.

12.

Lockheed

M. E.

, & Hanushek

E. A.

(1994). Concepts of educational efficiency and effectiveness . World Bank.

13.

Maity

, & Neogi

(2014). Production of tea in Assam and West Bengal: Technical inefficiency effects. Artha Vijnana , 56(4), 479–499.

14.

Mizala

, Romaguera

, & Farren

(2002). The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Applied Economics , 34(12), 1533–1552.

15.

Muvawala

, & Hisali

(2012). Technical efficiency in Uganda’s primary education system: Panel data evidence. African Statistical Journal , 70, 69.

16.

Rassouli-Currier

(2007). The choice of estimation method and its effect on efficiency measurement in public education: Stochastic frontier regression vs. data envelopment analysis. Journal of Economics , 33(1), 53–72.