Facebook
TwitterWe are publishing these as official statistics from 23 June on Explore Education Statistics.
All education settings were closed except for vulnerable children and the children of key workers due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak from Friday 20 March 2020.
From 1 June, the government asked schools to welcome back children in nursery, reception and years 1 and 6, alongside children of critical workers and vulnerable children. From 15 June, secondary schools, sixth form and further education colleges were asked to begin providing face-to-face support to students in year 10 and 12 to supplement their learning from home, alongside full time provision for students from priority groups.
The spreadsheet shows the numbers of teachers and children of critical workers in education since Monday 23 March and in early years settings since Thursday 16 April.
The summaries explain the responses for set time frames since 23 March 2020.
The data is collected from a daily education settings survey and a twice-weekly local authority early years survey.
Facebook
TwitterDuring the UK's coronavirus lockdown in 2020, music teaching for many students switched to online classes; In May, 87 percent of instrumental music teachers surveyed said that they had been able to effectively adapt to online teaching. Of those, 39 percent reported that their learners had made better progress than had they been taking classes in person as normal.
Facebook
TwitterIn January 2021, the Google Classroom application was downloaded more ******* times in the United Kingdom, which was a peak for downloads of this app during the provided time period. The closure of UK schools due to the Coronavirus pandemic at this time resulted in teachers and students having to learn remotely, and explains the sharp upticks in downloads seen in January 2021 and March 2020.
Facebook
TwitterThe Student Survey measures students’ backgrounds, knowledge, aspirations, satisfaction, and perception of their classroom environment. It also measures teaching quality and the impact of lockdowns and remote learning on education during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the support provided by schools through online services or other means, and the time allocated for learning. The 60-minute student interviews were conducted in a private setting, either at the student's home or a location where the student was comfortable answering the survey questions. The survey consisted of two parts: survey questions and a Life History Calendar (LHC). The interview was conducted in Nepali using a computer-assisted personal interviewing program. The LHC, including the COVID calendar, was designed in paper and pencil format. Out of 2858 eligible students, 2053 students completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 72%.
The Parent Survey includes household-level measures of household size, composition, socio-economic background (ethnicity, social status), education, occupation, wealth, assets, and income; challenges faced by parents of school children during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on education; and responses and actions the school undertook for the students and their education. The survey also includes individual-level measures such as parents’ perceptions of teaching quality, parental action related to gathering information about alternative schools, barriers/facilitators to exercising school choice, and awareness and participation in civil society organizations seeking to influence governance of education. The 60-minute parent interviews were conducted in a private setting, either at the respondent's home or a location where the respondent was comfortable answering the survey questions. This survey consisted of two parts: the survey questions and the Life History Calendar (LHC). The interview was conducted in Nepali using a computer-assisted personal interviewing program. The LHC, including the COVID calendar, was designed in paper and pencil format. Out of 2418 eligible parents, 2079 parents completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 86%.
The School Management Committee (SMC) survey includes assessments of the SMC's (for public schools) or the school board’s (for private schools) duties and responsibilities, particularly focusing on their actions and responses during the COVID-19 pandemic. It measures various aspects of their accountability, including delegation of tasks, management, performance evaluation, information dissemination, pandemic response strategies, and enforcement of policies to ensure the effective functioning of the school amidst the challenges posed by COVID-19. Out of 91 eligible chairpersons, 89 chairpersons completed this survey resulting in a response rate of 98%.
The Head Teacher data consists of two parts: the survey data and the COVID-19 school calendar data. The data includes measures of the principal's performance, information, and enforcement; actions taken by the school amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic; the management of classes; interactions with students; and the overall operational decisions made to ensure the smooth functioning of the educational institution during COVID-19. Out of 95 eligible head teachers, 89 head teachers completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 94%.
This augmentation project will enrich the parent project data funded by DFID-ESRC by adding measures of public expenditure and conducting a follow-up survey of schools, school management committees, and a sub set of students and parents from the parent project. The parent project has already made significant contribution to Nepali school education by developing and testing a set of tools to gather information about school performance and student educational outcomes.
Analysis of these data revealed strong associations between student learning and accountability measures such as parents' knowledge, engagement, and empowerment. However, because of the ongoing transition in Nepal's governance structure from a centralized to a local governance system, including in the education sector, it was not feasible to collect information about public expenditure and service delivery during the parent project. The lack of these important accountability measures has limited our findings. Additionally, since the parent project was completed, COVID-19 related school closures have dramatically changed the learning environment for schools, parents, and students. This change has been disruptive, negatively affecting some schools and students more than others. To enhance our social accountability measures and inform our understanding of how COVID-19 intersects with social accountability and student learning we propose the following four aims:
Aim One. Conduct a public expenditure tracking and service delivery survey and in-depth interview with representatives of local government bodies to add expenditure data to our measures of social accountability.
Aim Two. Conduct follow-up phone surveys with students, parents, school principals, and School Management Committees/School Boards (SMC/SB) that participated in the parent study to understand how COVID-19 related school disruptions have affected them and how disruptions have impacted student learning.
Aim Three. Collect School Education Examination (SEE) scores from Bharatpur Metropolitan City (BMC). This national exam taken at the end of grade 10 will be administered to students in our sample in March 2021.
Aim Four. Link the newly collected data with existing student, parent, and school-level data to estimate the effect of school disruptions and accountability during COVID-19 on student education outcomes. In particular, we will explore how dropout rates, attendance rates, and student achievement (SEE scores) have changed after COVID-19 compared to before the pandemic. We will consider factors like learning environment and support structures at home and school. We will also explore different school coping strategies and whether these strategies are correlated with accountability measures.
We will investigate how school disruptions have a greater negative impact on some students more than others by conducting our analyses among sub-groups of students. For example, we will compare males and females, advantaged and disadvantaged ethnic groups, students with highly educated and less educated parents, students with and without parents who are international migrants, and students who performed well in earlier assessments compared to those who did not perform well.
This study will generate important scientific resources including: (1) measures of public expenditure tracking in a low income context; (2) follow-up measures of accountability from schools, school management committees, parents, and students; and (3) scientific advancement in our understanding of the relationship between accountability and students' achievement during COVID-19. We will make these findings widely available to scientists and policy makers through local dissemination workshops to share findings of the study, making the data publicly available through ICPSR and the UK Data Service, and through presentations at national and international conferences and publications in scientific articles and policy brief.
Facebook
TwitterThe purpose of this statistical bulletin is to provide analysis of the latest annual data collections relating to teacher numbers and pupil: teacher ratios in grant-aided schools in 2019/20. This information is analysed by school type and teacher characteristics including gender, full-time/part-time working and principal/vice principal breakdown.
Following the coronavirus outbreak, school closures resulted in a delay in validating data with schools; as a consequence, the publication has been delayed from June to July. Analysis of teacher numbers by age have also been delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak.
Facebook
TwitterDue to the cancellation of exams in summer 2020, many of the more common instances of malpractice, such as taking unauthorised material into an examination, could not happen.
In 2021, although the summer exam series was cancelled, centres could devise their own assessments to use as evidence to support awarding. The grading process could therefore be potentially undermined by malpractice in a similar way to a normal year. For example, non-engagement with quality assurance processes by centres, bias or discrimination by centre staff or attempts by students to gain an unfair advantage during the centre’s process could amount to malpractice, and centres were asked to report these occurrences to awarding organisations.
As a result of the cancellation of exams, the number of penalties issued by exam boards for malpractice cases in summer 2020 and summer 2021 is very small. As a full analysis and description of these very small numbers would not have been meaningful, we are instead presenting a summary of main trends for this statistical release. However, a detailed breakdown of the figures is available in the accompanying data tables.
The main trends in malpractice in GCSE, AS and A level for the summer 2021 exam series were:
New categories of offence (bias or discrimination, and negligence) and penalty (referral to Teaching Regulation Agency) were introduced in 2020, to capture malpractice cases related to the centre assessment grade process put in place due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Of these, some allegations of bias or discrimination were reported in 2020, but none of these cases resulted in a penalty being imposed (e.g., due to a lack of evidence to substantiate the allegation). As such, they are not included in the numbers of penalties reported above or in the data tables. In 2021 teachers were asked to make judgements supported by evidence, and therefore the potential for bias and discrimination may have been lessened. No allegations of bias or discrimination, or negligence, were reported to Ofqual by the exam boards in summer 2021.
We are keen to hear your views on our publications. Please send any comments on this statistical release and how to improve it to meet your needs to data.analytics@ofqual.gov.uk.
Head of profession: Nadir Zanini
Not seeing a result you expected?
Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.
Facebook
TwitterWe are publishing these as official statistics from 23 June on Explore Education Statistics.
All education settings were closed except for vulnerable children and the children of key workers due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak from Friday 20 March 2020.
From 1 June, the government asked schools to welcome back children in nursery, reception and years 1 and 6, alongside children of critical workers and vulnerable children. From 15 June, secondary schools, sixth form and further education colleges were asked to begin providing face-to-face support to students in year 10 and 12 to supplement their learning from home, alongside full time provision for students from priority groups.
The spreadsheet shows the numbers of teachers and children of critical workers in education since Monday 23 March and in early years settings since Thursday 16 April.
The summaries explain the responses for set time frames since 23 March 2020.
The data is collected from a daily education settings survey and a twice-weekly local authority early years survey.