IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reecon/v63y2009i2p91-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Simpson paradox of school grading in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Dardanoni, Valentino
  • Modica, Salvatore
  • Pennisi, Aline

Abstract

Data from the 2003 OECD-PISA Survey for Italy reveal a striking difference in the relationship between students' competence (as measured by PISA score in Mathematics) and school grades across regions: a competence level granting bare sufficiency in the North yields excellence grades in the South. This has spurred a lively debate on education policy in the country, based on the inference drawn from this evidence that grading practices are excessively different in the two areas. We show in this note that this inference overlooks a Simpson paradox hidden in the data. After a more careful analysis, the above inference is seen to be wrong. The crucial omitted variable is the school-level average competence: schools with low-performing students, all over the country, inflate grades. Students in the South get higher grades simply because they are in weaker schools; grading policy is actually homogeneous across regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dardanoni, Valentino & Modica, Salvatore & Pennisi, Aline, 2009. "The Simpson paradox of school grading in Italy," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 91-94, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reecon:v:63:y:2009:i:2:p:91-94
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090-9443(09)00012-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:reecon:v:63:y:2009:i:2:p:91-94. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622941 .

    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.