# Managing Size of Public Schools and School Boards: A Multi-Level Cost Approach Applied to Dutch Primary Education

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. Model Design

- $C$ = (minimum) costs;
- $y$ = vector services produced;
- $w$ = vector of resource prices;
- $x$ = vector of resources;
- $T\left(x,y\right)$ = set of feasible combinations of services produced and resources.

- ${C}_{bs}^{\mathrm{min}}$ = minimum costs of school s of school board b;
- ${Y}_{bs}$ = vector of services of school s of school board b (e.g. number of pupils per type of training, education results);
- ${W}_{bs}$ = vector prices of resources used of school s of school board b (e.g. wage index, material price index);
- ${Z}_{bs}$ = vector environmental factors of school s of school board b (e.g. social background).

- $Ef{f}_{bs}$ = inefficiency of school s of school board b;
- ${Z}_{b}$ = attributes of board b;

#### 2.2. Functional Specification

## 3. Data

_{b}denote the number of schools governed by board $b$. Then ${y}_{b,s}$ equals zero for $n>{N}_{b}$. The largest number of schools governed by a single board in our sample equals 31.

## 4. Results

- $\tau $ = correction factor least squares standard errors of estimated parameters;
- ${\rho}_{u}$ = intra correlation of the residuals;
- $\overline{N}$ = average number of replications in the panel;

_{12}and b

_{23}may be affected in such a way that they are no longer significant at the 5% level, but they still are at the 10% level. The parameters of the number of associated schools and square of associated schools are not significant at the 5% level after correction (the square term still is at the 10% level). The hypothesis of no relationship between number of associated schools therefore cannot be rejected. The parameters estimate of the average test score and square average test score are significant at the 5% level, even after the correction, implying that the hypothesis that there is no relationship between cost and average test score must be rejected. The requirements concerning monotonicity with respect to outputs are met (positive parameters). Note that requirements regarding input prices are not relevant here, since costs are deflated by a price index number.

## 5. Concluding Remarks

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Blank, J.L.T. Illusies over Fusies. Een Kritische Beschouwing over de Schaalvergroting in de Nederlandse Publieke Sector (Oratie); CAOP: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2015; p. 41. [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, M.; Duncombe, W.; Yinger, J. Revisiting economies of size in American education: Are we any closer to a consensus? Econ. Educ. Rev.
**2002**, 21, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Colegrave, A.D.; Giles, M.J. School cost functions: A meta-regression analysis. Econ. Educ. Rev.
**2008**, 27, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bowles, T.J.; Bosworth, R. Scale Economies in Public Education: Evidence from School Level Data. J. Educ. Financ.
**2002**, 28, 285–299. [Google Scholar] - Butler, R.J.; Monk, D.H. The cost of public schooling in New York state: The role of scale and efficiency in 1978–1979. J. Hum. Resour.
**1985**, 20, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chakraborty, K.; Biswas, B.; Lewis, W. Economies of scale in public education: An econometric analysis. Contemp. Econ. Policy
**2000**, 18, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Duncombe, W.; Miner, J.; Ruggiero, J. Potential cost savings from school district consolidation: A case study of New York. Econ. Educ. Rev.
**1995**, 14, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stiefel, L.; Schwartz, A.E.; Iatarola, P.; Chellman, C.C. Mission matters: The cost of small high schools revisited. Econ. Educ. Rev.
**2009**, 28, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schiltz, F.; De Witte, K. Estimating scale economies and the optimal size of school districts: A flexible form approach. Br. Educ. Res. J.
**2017**, 43, 1048–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bickel, R.; Howley, C. The influence of scale on school performance: A multi-level extension of the Matthew principle. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch.
**2000**, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wales, T.J. The Effect of School and District Size on Education Costs in British Columbia. Int. Econ. Rev.
**1973**, 14, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Blom-Hansen, J.; Houlberg, K.; Serritzlew, S.; Treisman, D. Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation. Am. Political Sci. Rev.
**2016**, 110, 812–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Niaounakis, T.; Blank, J. Inter-municipal cooperation, economies of scale and cost efficiency: an application of stochastic frontier analysis to Dutch municipal tax departments. Local Gov. Stud.
**2017**, 43, 533–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pérez-López, G.; Prior, D.; Gómez, J.L.Z.; Plata-Díaz, A.M.; Gemma, P.L.; Diego, P.; María, P.D.A. Cost efficiency in municipal solid waste service delivery. Alternative management forms in relation to local population size. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2016**, 255, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bel, G.; Warner, M.E. Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Adm.
**2015**, 93, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daal, J.; Merkies, A. Aggregation in Economic Research: From Individual to Macro Relations; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Blank, J.L.T.; Valdmanis, V.G. Principles of Productivity Measurement; an Elementary Introduction to Quantative Research on the Productivity, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality of the Public Sector, 2nd ed.; IPSE Studies: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fried, H.O.; Lovell, C.A.K.; Schmidt, S.S. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Niaounakis, T.K.; Blank, J.L.T. Lasten van (Samen) Belasten. Een Empirisch Onderzoek Naar de Doelmatigheid van de Gemeentelijke Belastingheffing en de Uitvoering van de Wet WOZ Tussen 2005 en 2012; IPSE Studies: Den Haag/Delft, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, L.R.; Jorgenson, D.W.; Lau, L.J. Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers. Rev. Econ. Stat.
**1973**, 55, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

VARIABLE | MEAN | STD. DEV. | MINIMUM | MAXIMUM |
---|---|---|---|---|

BOARD LEVEL (N = 723) | ||||

COST (IN MILLIONS OF EUROS) | 5.20 | 6.46 | 0.37 | 52.41 |

ENROLMENT (TOTAL) | 983.15 | 1214.64 | 45.00 | 9340.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-1) | 903.00 | 1199.27 | 44.00 | 8347.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-2) | 46.10 | 63.14 | 0.00 | 447.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-3) | 34.05 | 79.56 | 0.00 | 980.00 |

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS | 4.60 | 5.53 | 1.00 | 31.00 |

SCHOOL LEVEL (N = 2601) | ||||

ENROLMENT (TOTAL) | 213.30 | 128.25 | 12.00 | 1283.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-1) | 196.00 | 123.14 | 12.00 | 1246.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-2) | 10.11 | 12.30 | 0.00 | 174.00 |

ENROLMENT (SES-3) | 7.19 | 16.72 | 0.00 | 205.00 |

AVERAGE TEST SCORE | 535.26 | 3.92 | 514.70 | 546.20 |

VARIABLE | PARAMETER | ESTIMATE | STD ERROR | T-VALUE | T-VALUE CORREC-TED |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

CONSTANT | a | −0.984 | 0.006 | −164.423 | −85.096 |

ENROLMENT (SES-1) | b_{1} | 0.634 | 0.006 | 110.568 | 57.224 |

ENROLMENT (SES-2) | b_{2} | 0.058 | 0.003 | 20.363 | 10.539 |

ENROLMENT (SES-3) | b_{3} | 0.128 | 0.002 | 62.498 | 32.345 |

SES-1 X SES-1 | b_{11} | 0.215 | 0.010 | 21.121 | 10.931 |

SES-1 X SES-2 | b_{12} | −0.008 | 0.002 | −3.522 | −1.823 |

SES-1 X SES-3 | b_{13} | −0.038 | 0.002 | −19.127 | −9.899 |

SES-2 X SES-2 | b_{22} | 0.023 | 0.001 | 15.694 | 8.123 |

SES-2 X SES-3 | b_{23} | 0.003 | 0.001 | 3.482 | 1.802 |

SES-3 X SES-3 | b_{33} | 0.045 | 0.001 | 44.595 | 23.080 |

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS | d_{1} | −0.017 | 0.006 | −2.790 | −1.444 |

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS X NUMBER OF SCHOOLS | d_{11} | 0.016 | 0.005 | 3.574 | 1.850 |

TEST SCORE | d_{2} | 0.100 | 0.026 | 3.883 | 2.010 |

TEST SCORE X TEST SCORE | d_{22} | 1.742 | 0.190 | 9.181 | 4.752 |

YEAR = 2011 | h_{1} | −0.019 | 0.006 | −3.182 | −3.182 |

YEAR = 2012 | h_{2} | −0.035 | 0.006 | −5.861 | −5.861 |

YEAR = 2013 | h_{3} | −0.025 | 0.006 | −4.298 | −4.298 |

YEAR = 2014 | h_{4} | 0.006 | 0.006 | 1.023 | 1.023 |

R2 | 0.99 |

OUTPUT CATEGORY | MARGINAL COST |
---|---|

SES-1 | €4253 |

SES-2 | €7830 |

SES-3 | €20,411 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Blank, J.L.T.; Niaounakis, T.K.
Managing Size of Public Schools and School Boards: A Multi-Level Cost Approach Applied to Dutch Primary Education. *Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, 6662.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236662

**AMA Style**

Blank JLT, Niaounakis TK.
Managing Size of Public Schools and School Boards: A Multi-Level Cost Approach Applied to Dutch Primary Education. *Sustainability*. 2019; 11(23):6662.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236662

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Blank, Jos L. T., and Thomas K. Niaounakis.
2019. "Managing Size of Public Schools and School Boards: A Multi-Level Cost Approach Applied to Dutch Primary Education" *Sustainability* 11, no. 23: 6662.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236662