Introduction

League tables are often used to present the relative performance of public sector agencies and programmes providing similar services. For example, the performance of primary and secondary schools in England is summarised in performance tables, which are now known as School and College Achievement and Attainment Tables. The performance indicators used to form these tables have changed over time, always with the declared aim of supporting parental choice. As well as using them to allow comparison of schools, hospitals and other public sector bodies, governments also use them to encourage compliance in the private sector. For instance, the UK Environment Agency’s website (Environment Agency, 2010) describes a performance league table for businesses and other organisations to encourage lower energy use. As discussed in earlier chapters, league tables are very popular with journalists. For example, most of the broadsheet newspapers in the UK publish league tables that rank universities so as to guide applicants toward suitable places to study. See, for example, the tables produced by the Guardian (2010). Needless to say, different newspapers have different ranking schemes based on different assessments of the factors that comprise excellent university education.

The production and use of performance league tables raises issues discussed in other chapters. For example, Chapter 5 discussed measurement for comparison, and commented on the use of ratios and other approaches to provide fair comparisons. It also suggested that a major aim of measurement for comparison should be to support learning and improvement. One danger with league tables is that they are used as sticks to punish the apparently poor performers in a form of naming and shaming. Sometimes this may be necessary, but it should surely not be normal practice as it rarely supports learning and improvement. League tables, by their nature, rely on composite indicators and the ranking depends on how this indicator is constructed. Chapters 8 and 9 discussed scorecards and composite indicators, recognising that most public sector bodies have multiple goals and must satisfy multiple audiences. This means that reducing their performance to a one-dimensional indicator can be a mistake, unless all are agreed that such an indicator is what is needed. Chapter 6 discussed the publication of performance data on public bodies and recognised the need for simplification, but warned that this can lead to misunderstandings and can even lead people to believe that performance is worse than it actually is.