A state education board achieved 100% student enrollment (goal attainment).…

Concept: Effectiveness and efficiency are two distinct performance dimensions. Effectiveness is the extent to which a set goal or objective has actually been achieved — it looks at output against the target. Efficiency is how economically the inputs (resources, cost, time) were used to produce that output — it looks at the input-to-output ratio. A performance can be effective without being efficient, and vice versa.

Application: In this scenario, the board's goal was full student enrollment, and it reports 100% enrollment — the target was completely achieved, so effectiveness is high. At the same time, the cost incurred per pupil rose four-fold to reach that same enrollment outcome, meaning far more input (money) was consumed for essentially the same output — so efficiency (resource utilisation) is low.

Cross-check: Each remaining option can be tested against the same two reported figures:

• High profitability, low goal attainment — profitability is a private-sector financial-return measure, not part of this framework; and the reported 100% enrollment is high, not low, goal attainment, so this option is inconsistent with the case.

• High efficiency, high resource wastage — efficiency and resource wastage move in opposite directions by definition, so pairing both as high is self-contradictory; and the four-fold cost increase per pupil signals low, not high, efficiency.

• Low effectiveness, high efficiency — the 100% enrollment figure is high, not low, effectiveness, and the four-fold rise in cost per pupil indicates low, not high, efficiency — this option reverses both dimensions.

Result: The board fully met its enrollment goal (high effectiveness) but consumed far more input per unit of output to do so (low efficiency) — high effectiveness, low efficiency.