This table contains data on the percent of population age 25 and up with a four-year college degree or higher for California, its regions, counties, county subdivisions, cities, towns, and census tracts. Greater educational attainment has been associated with health-promoting behaviors including consumption of fruits and vegetables and other aspects of healthy eating, engaging in regular physical activity, and refraining from excessive consumption of alcohol and from smoking. Completion of formal education (e.g., high school) is a key pathway to employment and access to healthier and higher paying jobs that can provide food, housing, transportation, health insurance, and other basic necessities for a healthy life. Education is linked with social and psychological factors, including sense of control, social standing and social support. These factors can improve health through reducing stress, influencing health-related behaviors and providing practical and emotional support. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Data and Resources section. The educational attainment table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project (HCI) of the Office of Health Equity. The goal of HCI is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The creation of healthy social, economic, and physical environments that promote healthy behaviors and healthy outcomes requires coordination and collaboration across multiple sectors, including transportation, housing, education, agriculture and others. Statistical metrics, or indicators, are needed to help local, regional, and state public health and partner agencies assess community environments and plan for healthy communities that optimize public health. More information on HCI can be found here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Accessible%202%20CDPH_Healthy_Community_Indicators1pager5-16-12.pdf The format of the educational attainment table is based on the standardized data format for all HCI indicators. As a result, this data table contains certain variables used in the HCI project (e.g., indicator ID, and indicator definition). Some of these variables may contain the same value for all observations.

This dataset shows broad performance metrics for education for Maryland as a whole, from School Years 2005/2006 to 2013/2014. Data are provided by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and were originally submitted to the Governor's Office.

The growing demand for an educated workforce dictates the need to monitor student outcomes closely throughout student enrollments, progress through different levels of education, successful completion of education, and into gainful employment. Successful student outcomes require robust programs of study, a variety of financial aid, and a customized approach to student needs. Data plays a critical role for the ability of decision-makers to improve educational programs, direct financial aid into best channels, align education programs with industry demands, and cater better to student needs. This student outcomes dashboard allows Iowa partners ease of access to Iowa's student outcomes in one consolidated place providing information related to student success, from PK-12 education and college readiness, to postsecondary education, gainful employment, and adult literacy programs.

In which post secondary institutions do graduates of WA public high schools enroll in the first year after HS graduation?

In which post secondary sectors (private/public, 2 Year / CTC / 4 Year, in-state/out of state) do high school graduates enroll in the first year after graduation?

This report uses recent economic modelling to relate cognitive skills – as measured by PISA and other international instruments – to economic growth, demonstrating that relatively small improvements to labour force skills can largely impact the future well-being of a nation. The report also shows that it is the quality of learning outcomes, not the length of schooling, which makes the difference. A modest goal of all OECD countries boosting their average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years would increase OECD gross domestic product by USD 115 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. More aggressive goals could result in gains in the order of USD 260 trillion.

This volume of PISA 2009 results examines how human, financial and material resources, and education policies and practices shape learning outcomes. Following an introduction to PISA and a Reader's Guide explaining how to interpret the data, Chapter 1 presents a summary of features shared by "successful" school systems. Chapter 2 details how resources, policies and practices relate to student performance. Chapter 3 provides detailed descriptions and in-depth analyses of selected organisational features (how students are sorted into grades, schools, and programmes, school autonomy, etc.) of schools and systems and how those aspects affect performance. Chapter 4 describes and analyzes key aspects of the learning environment (behaviours, discipline, parental involvement, school leadership, etc.) and how they affect performance. The final chapter discusses the policy implications of the findings. Annexes provides detailed statistical data and technical background.

Total enrollment count for students whose learning preference is remote or blended or missing and who have attended school in person at least once since September 16, 2020. Students attending charter schools, students receiving home or hospital instruction, pre-K students (3-K) attending New York City Early Education Centers (NYCEECs), and students attending some District 79 programs are not included. In order to comply with regulations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) on public reporting of education outcomes, data for groups with 5 or fewer students enrolled are suppressed with an “s”. In addition, corresponding groups with the next lowest number of students enrolled are suppressed when they could reveal, through addition or subtraction, the underlying numbers that have been redacted.

The National Reporting System for Adult Education, 2014-15 (NRS 2014-15), is part of the Adult Education and Family Literacy program; program data is available since 1997 at . NRS 2014-15 (http://www.nrsweb.org) is a cross-sectional study that is designed to monitor performance accountability for the federally funded, state-administered adult education program. States will be required to submit their progress in adult education and literacy activities by reporting data on core indicators of outcomes on all adult learners who receive 12 or more hours of service as well as state expenditures on the adult education program. States can also report on additional, optional secondary measures that include outcomes related to employment, family, and community. The study will be conducted using a web-based reporting system of states. NRS 2014-15 is a universe survey, and all states are expected to submit data. Key statistics that will be produced from the study include student demographics, receipt of secondary school diploma or general education development (GED) certificate, placement in postsecondary education or training, educational gain, and employment placement and retention.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2016 (NAEP 2016) is a data collection that is part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) program; program data are available since 1990 at . NAEP 2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/) was a cross-sectional survey of student achievement assessing what America's 8th-grade students know and can do in the musical and visual arts. The data collection included paper-and- pencil assessments of students as well as online questionnaires of teachers and school administrators. NAEP 2016 included only national-level assessments. Key statistics produced from NAEP 2016 include overall results of student performance and achievement, student performance results for various subgroups of students, and information on various educational factors.

What percentage of high school graduates complete a post secondary credential within eight years of high school graduation?

The National Reporting System (NRS) for Adult Education, 2017-18 (NRS 2017-18) is a performance accountability system for the national adult education program that is authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014. More information about the program is available at . NRS 2017-18 is a cross-sectional data collection that is designed to monitor performance accountability for the federally funded, state-administered adult education program. States are required to submit their progress in adult education and literacy activities by reporting data on the WIOA primary indicators of performance for all AEFLA program participants who receive 12 or more hours of service, as well as state expenditures on the adult education program. States may also report on additional, optional secondary measures that include outcomes related to employment, family, and community. The data collection is conducted using a web-based reporting system. NRS 2017-18 is a universe data collection activity, and all states are required to submit performance data. Key statistics that are produced from the data collection include student demographics, receipt of secondary school diploma or a high school equivalency (HSE) credential, placement in postsecondary education or training, measurable skill gain, and employment outcomes.

What percentage of high school graduates persist/retain in post secondary institutions after the first year of post secondary enrollment?

What percent of high school graduates enrolled in post secondary institutions in the first year after graduation?

The New York State calculation method was first adopted for the Cohort of 2001 (Class 2005). The cohort consists of al students who first entered 9th grade in a given school year (e.g., the cohort of 2006 entered 9th grade in 2006-2007 school year). Graduates are defined as those students earning either a local or regents diploma and exclude those earning either a special education (IEP) diploma for GED. In order to comply with FERPA regulations on public reporting of education outcomes, rows with a cohort of 20 or fewer students are suppressed. Due to small number of students identified as Native American or Multi-Racial these ethnicities are not reported on the Ethnicity tab, however these students are included in the counts on all other tabs.

Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya (EMACK) is an initiative of the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The original EMACK project was initiated in 2006 to increase quality educational opportunities for pre-primary, primary, and lower secondary school children who had been historically marginalized by cultural practices and poverty in Coast Province (CP), North Eastern Province (NEP), and informal settlements of Nairobi. From 2006 to 2012, as a part of the EMACK project, AKF developed and implemented a package of interventions focused on learner engagement and achievement at the classroom level in order to improve learning outcomes and learner transitions from pre-primary to lower secondary school. By 2012, EMACK had reached 767 informal and formal schools in 23 districts across Nairobi, CP, and NEP, benefitting nearly 425,000 people, including 400,000 children (215,426 boys and 183,706 girls), 4,000 teachers, and 11,000 orphans and vulnerable children. In 2012 EMACK refocused its interventions towards building improved readiness of children (before and as they enter primary school) and ensuring schools, especially the lower primary standards (standards 1 through 3) are ready to support children’s learning and development. This refocus, EMACK II, complements the USAID education strategy (April 2011 – 2015) and has been developed by AKF in collaboration with USAID. The overall goal of the re-aligned EMACK II (Oct 2012-Sept 2014) program is to “enhance equitable access and improve learning outcomes in Kiswahili, English and Mathematics for children in primary grades 1, 2 & 3. To achieve the re-aligned EMACK II goal, AKF identified the following four revised strategic objectives (SOs): Improved teaching and learning in Kiswahili, English and mathematics in primary grades1, 2 and 3 in target areas of CP, NEP and the informal settlements of Nairobi directly benefiting over 269,000 children attending 800 schools (formal and informal). Improved effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of school management, and improved parents’ and communities’ participation to support reading outcomes in primary grades1, 2 and 3 in CP, NEP and the informal settlements of Nairobi in 800 schools (formal and informal). Strengthened MOE delivery systems at the cluster and district levels to enhance learning outcomes in Kiswahili, English and mathematics in primary grades1, 2 and 3 at the national level, in 8 counties [4 in CP, 1 in Nairobi, and 3 in NEP], and in 28 districts [14 in CP, 2 in Nairobi, and 12 in NEP]. Increased equitable access to education for 120,000 children in crisis and conflict environments in specific areas of CP, NEP, and the informal settlements of Nairobi. AKF plans to achieve these through improving the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom, establishing a cadre of trained trainers, and education officials as well as increasing the engagement and participation of the parents and communities so they become more accountable, effective and efficient in providing sustained support to the lower primary (grades 1, 2 and 3) education.

This report focuses on the development of reading proficiency during the transition from adolescence to early adulthood. The span of time between the ages of 15 and 24 is a critical period of development for young people. Once compulsory education is completed, individual decisions about post-secondary education, employment and other life choices have to be made with major consequences for future learning and employment outcomes. A good foundation in reading proficiency facilitates success in specialised education during higher education or during job-related training. Since reading proficiency is not the goal of such specialised or professional learning, reading skills may begin to atrophy. So both learning gains and losses need to be considered as human capital is developed. Canada’s investments in PISA, as well as in longitudinal data and reassessment of reading proficiency, provides insights into the importance of individual reading proficiency and later outcomes, such as educational attainment, further learning, employment and earnings. Therefore, this report makes a vital contribution to the understanding of learning gains between the ages of 15 and 24 and their impact on such outcomes, and provides a basis for evidence-based policy and strategic investments by the community of countries participating in PISA

Overall attendance data include students in Districts 1-32 and 75 (Special Education). Students in District 79 (Alternative Schools & Programs), charter schools, home schooling, and home and hospital instruction are excluded. Pre-K data do not include NYC Early Education Centers or District Pre-K Centers; therefore, Pre-K data are limited to those who attend K-12 schools that offer Pre-K. Transfer schools are included in citywide, borough, and district counts but removed from school-level files. Attendance is attributed to the school the student attended at the time. If a student attends multiple schools in a school year, the student will contribute data towards multiple schools. Starting in 2020-21, the NYC DOE transitioned to NYSED's definition of chronic absenteeism. Students are considered chronically absent if they have an attendance of 90 percent or less (i.e. students who are absent 10 percent or more of the total days). In order to be included in chronic absenteeism calculations, students must be enrolled for at least 10 days (regardless of whether present or absent) and must have been present for at least 1 day. The NYSED chronic absenteeism definition is applied to all prior years in the report. School-level chronic absenteeism data reflect chronic absenteeism at a particular school. In order to eliminate double-counting students in chronic absenteeism counts, calculations at the district, borough, and citywide levels include all attendance data that contribute to the given geographic category. For example, if a student was chronically absent at one school but not at another, the student would only be counted once in the citywide calculation. For this reason, chronic absenteeism counts will not align across files. All demographic data are based on a student's most recent record in a given year. Students With Disabilities (SWD) data do not include Pre-K students since Pre-K students are screened for IEPs only at the parents' request. English language learner (ELL) data do not include Pre-K students since the New York State Education Department only begins administering assessments to be identified as an ELL in Kindergarten. Only grades PK-12 are shown, but calculations for "All Grades" also include students missing a grade level, so PK-12 may not add up to "All Grades". Data include students missing a gender, but are not shown due to small cell counts. Data for Asian students include Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders . Multi-racial and Native American students, as well as students missing ethnicity/race data are included in the "Other" ethnicity category. In order to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations on public reporting of education outcomes, rows with five or fewer students are suppressed, and have been replaced with an "s". Using total days of attendance as a proxy , rows with 900 or fewer total days are suppressed. In addition, other rows have been replaced with an "s" when they could reveal, through addition or subtraction, the underlying numbers that have been redacted. Chronic absenteeism values are suppressed, regardless of total days, if the number of students who contribute at least 20 days is five or fewer. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shift to remote learning in March 2020, 2019-20 attendance data was only available for September 2019 through March 13, 2020. Interactions data from the spring of 2020 are reported on a separate tab. Interactions were reported by schools during remote learning, from April 6 2020 through June 26 2020 (a total of 57 instructional days, excluding special professional development days of June 4 and June 9). Schools were required to indicate any student from their roster that did not have an interaction on a given day. Schools were able to define interactions in a way that made sense for their students and families. Definitions of an interaction included: • Student submission of an assignment or completion of an

The Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants (RTT-SIG Impact Evaluation) is a study that is part of the Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants (RTT-SIG Impact Evaluation) program. RTT-SIG Impact Evaluation (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_racetotop.asp) is a cross-sectional survey that assesses the implementation of the Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grant (SIG) programs at the State, local education agency (LEA), and school levels, as well as whether the receipt of RTT and/or SIG funding to implement a school turnaround model has had an impact on outcomes for the lowest-achieving schools. Additionally, the study investigates whether RTT reforms were related to improvements in student outcomes and whether implementation of the four school turnaround models, and the strategies within those models, was related to improvement in outcomes for the lowest-achieving schools. The study was conducted using a combination of telephone interviews and web-based surveys targeted to school administrators at the state, LEA, and school levels. Key statistics produced from RTT-SIG Impact Evaluation include State, LEA, and school adoption levels of policies and practices promoted by RTT and SIG, as well as impacts on student outcomes of RTT and SIG funding.

Based on the survey results of OECD's PISA 2000 programme, this report looks at: the extent to which the schools that students attend make a difference in performance; the relative impact of school climate, school policies and school resources on quality and equity; the relationship between the structure of education systems and educational quality and equity; and the effect of decentralisation and privatisation to school performance. It concludes with a summary of how school factors relate to quality and equity, and the implications for policy. The analysis and data cover almost all OECD countries and 14 additional non-OECD countries.