Since 1968, OCR has collected civil rights data related to students' access and barriers to educational opportunity from early childhood through grade 12. These data are collected from all public schools and districts, as well as long-term secure juvenile justice facilities, charter schools, alternative schools, and special education schools that focus primarily on serving the educational needs of students with disabilities under IDEA or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The CRDC collects information about student enrollment; access to courses, programs and school staff; and school climate factors, such as bullying, harassment and student discipline. Most data collected by the CRDC are disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, disability, and English Learners. Originally known as the Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Survey, OCR began by collecting data every year from 1968 to 1974 from a sample of school districts and their schools. Over time, the schedule and approach to data collection has changed. Since the 2011-12 collection, the CRDC has been administered every two years to all public school districts and schools in the 50 states and Washington, D.C., and OCR added the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the 2017-18 CRDC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in school closures nationwide, OCR postponed the 2019-20 CRDC and instead collected data from the 2020-21 school year.

The Civil Rights Data Collection, 2009-10 (CRDC 2009-10), is part of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) program. CRDC 2009-10 (https://ocrdata.ed.gov/) is a cross-sectional survey that collects data on key education and civil rights issues in the nation's public schools, which include student enrollment and educational programs and services, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. LEAs submit administrative records about schools in the district. LEAs and BOCES-type regional education centers functioning as LEAs were sampled. Prior to 2011-12, charter schools were primarily sampled if they were part of a LEA, not if they were a separate charter school district. For CRDC 2009-10, 100% of LEAs and 100% of schools provided data. Key statistics produced from CRDC 2009-10 can provide information about critical civil rights issues as well as contextual information on the state of civil rights in the nation, including enrollment demographics, advanced placement, discipline, and special education services.

Abstract

In Brazil, policy makers in the state of Ceara are looking at how providing information to schools about best teaching practices, as well as offering peer learning opportunities, can help boost the performance of less effective teachers. The state government wants to stimulate more interaction among teachers at the school level that will lead to faster and cheaper diffusion of good practices within schools. The Secretariat requested World Bank assistance with the design and implementation of the random assignment experiment during the 2015 school year to measure cost-effectiveness of this approach.

The endline data collection was carried out in October - November 2015. Researchers used "Stallings Classroom Snapshot" instrument to gather information about teachers' use of time, materials and interactive pedagogical practices. The observations were made in 3,121 classrooms of 10th, 11th and 12th grade in randomly selected 300 schools.

The schools were randomly assigned to a treatment group (156 schools) or a control group (136 schools). The treatment was launched in March 2015. The treatment group received detailed feedback on the school's results from the classroom observations, information on teacher performance, self-help materials that included a book, videos and exercises about effective teaching strategies, and a log book and classroom observation templates to record teachers' observations of one other. The control schools received neither feedback nor information. After the treatment, researchers assessed the results of student test scores to determine whether the campaign helped improve classroom learning.

The baseline survey was conducted in November 2014.

Geographic coverage

The state of Ceará

Analysis unit

Classrooms; Schools

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Sampling procedure

Ceará has 573 secondary schools that offer the complete three-year cycle. Of these, a sample of 400 schools was stratified by size, geographic area and quartile of learning results. Researchers randomly assigned the 400 schools into 4 groups, with the first 175 assigned to the treatment group, a second group of 25 assigned to a no-observation group, the next 175 schools assigned to the control group, and the last 25 schools also assigned to the no-observation group.

A late start to the baseline round of classroom observations and a limited budget led to a reduction in the sample to 350 schools (175 treatments and 175 controls), which were selected through simple randomization to keep the sample balance. The team did not observe any classroom in the group of 50 schools that were randomly assigned to a no-observation group of the study, but was able to analyze the students' assessments results afterwards.

Sampling deviation

Out of the 350 schools of the randomization, with 175 each planned for treatment and controls, 292 schools were observed in November 2014 and in November 2015. The full initial sample could not be observed due to disruptions in the school calendar in November 2014 (standardized tests and holidays) and a shortage of observers in the Fortaleza district. The 292-school final sample included 156 schools in the treatment group and 136 in the control group. This difference in the attrition of treatment and control schools was due to the data collection firm focusing their efforts on making up for the schools of the treatment group that would benefit from the classroom observation and the intervention. As a result, because the loss of schools from the treatment and control groups was uneven, the research team conducted a series of balance checks to test the randomization.

In the treatment sample, the 19 schools that were not observed could not receive the information treatment (benchmarked classroom observation feedback for the teachers in their school). But these schools were given access to the other three components of the program – self-help materials, face-to-face training and coaching, and were observed again at endline. The same schools were observed to obtain the endline data. Matched repeat observations were made in 2,399 classrooms, 75% of those observed at baseline. Variations in the school calendar and logistical issues resulted in 25% of the 2015 observations being conducted in grades and subjects in the school that had not been observed at baseline.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

1) The Stallings Classroom Snapshot Coding Sheet: The classroom snapshot records the participants, their activities, and the materials being used in the classroom, at ten separate instances throughout a class period.

2) School Principals Questionnaire: The questionnaire gathers information about teachers' engagement in the school, level of teacher training activities, and Principals' and supervisors' assessments of the value and impact of the treatment.

3) Classroom Demographic Sheet: The instrument is used for identification of the school and classroom, and the basic information related to the observed classroom, such as the number of student and the start time of the class.

Abstract

The objectives in this ex-post performance evaluation target how the education sub-activity was implemented, if and how it has been sustained, and its perceived outcomes. To meet these objectives, MCC and Social Impact, Inc. (SI), outlined four evaluation questions: 1. What are the current conditions of MCC investments made for the education sub-activity? How do the conditions of MCC investments compare to non-MCC-supported sites? 2. How did the implementation process and/or post-completion maintenance contribute to current conditions of MCC investments? 3. What other factors explain both perceived school-level outcomes and the current conditions of schools? 4. What are the perceived outcomes of the investments in school infrastructure?

To answer the evaluation questions, SI supplemented existing data with two distinct but related data collection activities: first, a school conditions survey to answer Evaluation Question 1, and second, cross-case studies to answer Evaluation Questions 2, 3, and 4.

Overall findings show that on average, MCC schools are in better condition than non-MCC schools, while schools in the Southern zone are in better condition, on average, compared to those in Afram zone and Northern zone.

Qualitative data shows that differences in implementation and maintenance practices had an effect on the current condition of schools. Lack of maintenance funding and community buy-in were identified as major barriers to maintenance. Respondents also highlighted misuse of school facilities by community members (across all zones and schools), harsh weather (primarily in Afram and Northern zones, but all school types), and environment (primarily in low scoring MCC schools) adversely affected school conditions. However, PTAs and SMCs in high scoring MCC and non-MCC schools were more proactive in addressing these factors than those at low-scoring MCC schools. The perception across all zones in all study schools was that improvements in infrastructure positively affected enrollment, attendance, completion and learning.

Geographic coverage

Data was collected from schools in the three zones where MCC interventions took place: Afram Basin, Northern Region and Southern Horticulture Zone.

Analysis unit

School

Universe

All the schools that had been considered for the MCC education intervention.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

MCC schools: All 221 schools that received MCC funding were included in the study. Non-MCC schools: All 337 remaining schools that (1) had been considered for MCC funding but didn't receive it and (2) that MiDA could provide names for.

Sampling deviation

N/A

Research instrument

Quantitative questionnaire: School Conditions Survey The school conditions survey was a systematic examination of current school infrastructure conditions against international standards, GoG building guidelines, and the MiDA maintenance manual. The enumerators scored different aspects of school infrastructure, including the condition of school grounds, classroom blocks, equipment and furniture, and toilet facilities and polytanks. Ratings of condition were made on a three-point system-poor, average, and good-and each rating was followed up with a photograph of the object being rated.

Qualitative questionnaires: Key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and community score cards (CSCs) were conducted with parents, students, teachers, school leaders or headmasters, district education officers, individuals responsible for operations and management, construction consultants and implementers, MiDA and MCC staff, and a representative from the Ministry of Education. Questions were asked to understand the processes that may have led to the current conditions of school infrastructure, and perceptions of key stakeholders on the relationship between the investments made and school-level outcomes such as enrollment, attendance, completion, and learning.

Cleaning operations

Data cleaning was done for the school conditions survey. This included: - consistency checks and removing duplicate entries - coding and labeling variables - checks on ratings by enumerators - corrections made to 'Don't Know' ratings where a rating could be given from the photograph

Response rate

MCC schools: All 221 schools surveyed Non-MCC schools: 192 schools out of 337 could be surveyed. This is because many of the schools in the list provided by MiDA were duplicates (already included in the MCC funded list).

Sampling error estimates

N/A

Abstract

The data collected from the SNAP Survey of Ordinary Schools is collected from all schools each year. The data forms part of the national Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) database used to inform education policymakers and managers in the Department of Basic Education and the Provincial education departments, as well as to provide valuable information to external stakeholders. For example, general school data from the survey is used to compile and maintain the Master List of Schools in the country for education planning purposes.

Geographic coverage

The survey has national coverage

Analysis unit

The units of analysis in the survey are schools in South Africa and their staff and learners

Universe

The survey covers all Ordinary Schools in South Africa, both Public and Independent. This survey does not cover Special Schools as the DBE conducts a separate survey of Special Schools annually.

Kind of data

Administrative records data [adm]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Research instrument

Data is collected with a survey questionnaire and educator forms. The principle completes the survey questionnaire and each educator (both state paid and other) in each school completes an educator form. Schools record the EMIS number provided by the DBE on the questionnaires and forms for identification.

Data appraisal

The data files do not cover the same period. Dates covered for each file are:

Applicable school grades data file (2010-2013) General school data file (2007-2013) Learner enrolment data files (1997-2013) Master list data file (1997-2013) Remuneration of practitioners data file (2010-2013) Staff remuneration data file (1997-2013)

The 1997 and 1998 data in this dataset cannot be matched with other years as the learner count is too low. The 1997 data also does not include data on schools in the Eastern Cape Province and the Limpopo Province The 1998 data does not include data on schools in the Limpopo Province

The Applicable grades data file does not include unique identifiers.

Since 1968, the CRDC, formerly the Elementary and Secondary School Survey, has collected data on key education and civil rights issues in our nation's public schools for use by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in its enforcement and monitoring efforts, by other Department of Education offices and federal agencies, and by policymakers and researchers outside the Department of Education. The CRDC collects information about school characteristics and about programs, services, and outcomes for students. Most student data are disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency (LEP), and disability.The CRDC is a biennial survey (i.e., it is conducted every other school year), and response to the survey is required by law. The 2013–14 CRDC collected data from the universe of all public school districts, also referred to as local education agencies (LEAs), and schools, including long-term secure juvenile justice facilities, charter schools, alternative schools, and schools serving students with disabilities. Data were collected for the 2013–14 school year. Data collection began in April 2015 and ended on January 8, 2016.The CRDC data are collected pursuant to the 1980 Department of Education Organization Act and 34 CFR Section 100.6(b) of the Department of Education regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The requirements are also incorporated by reference in Department regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

The National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Education Demographic and Geographic Estimate (EDGE) program develops annually updated point locations (latitude and longitude) for public elementary and secondary schools included in the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD program annually collects administrative and fiscal data about all public schools, school districts, and state education agencies in the United States. The data are supplied by state education agency officials and include basic directory and contact information for schools and school districts, as well as characteristics about student demographics, number of teachers, school grade span, and various other administrative conditions. CCD school and agency point locations are derived from reported information about the physical location of schools and agency administrative offices. The point locations and administrative attributes in this data layer represent the most current CCD collection. For more information about NCES school point data, see: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/SchoolLocations. For more information about these CCD attributes, as well as additional attributes not included, see: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp.Notes:-1 or MIndicates that the data are missing.-2 or NIndicates that the data are not applicable.-9Indicates that the data do not meet NCES data quality standards.Collections are available for the following years:2022-232021-222020-212019-202018-192017-18All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data. Collections are available for the following years:

Abstract

The Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) are a set of health and education indicators that examine the effort and ability of staff and the availability of key inputs and resources that contribute to a functioning school or health facility. The indicators are standardized allowing comparison between and within countries over time.

The Education SDIs include teacher effort, teacher knowledge and ability, and the availability of key inputs (for example, textbooks, basic teaching equipment, and infrastructure such as blackboards and toilets). The indicators provide a snapshot of the learning environment and the key resources necessary for students to learn.

Kenya's Service Delivery Indicators Education Survey was implemented in May-July 2012 by the Economic Policy Research Center and Kimetrica, in close coordination with the World Bank SDI team. The data were collected from a stratified random sample of 239 public and 67 private schools to provide a representative snapshot of the learning environment in both public and private schools. The survey assessed the knowledge of 1,679 primary school teachers, surveyed 2,960 teachers for an absenteeism study, and observed 306 grade 4 lessons. In addition, learning outcomes were measured for almost 3,000 grade 4 students.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students.

Universe

All primary schools

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling strategy for SDI surveys is designed towards attaining indicators that are accurate and representative at the national level, as this allows for proper cross-country (i.e. international benchmarking) and across time comparisons, when applicable. In addition, other levels of representativeness are sought to allow for further disaggregation (rural/urban areas, public/private facilities, subregions, etc.) during the analysis stage.

The sampling strategy for SDI surveys follows a multistage sampling approach. The main units of analysis are facilities (schools and health centers) and providers (health and education workers: teachers, doctors, nurses, facility managers, etc.). In the case of education, SDI surveys also aim to produce accurate information on grade four pupils’ performance through a student assessment. The multistage sampling approach makes sampling procedures more practical by dividing the selection of large populations of sampling units in a step-by-step fashion. After defining the sampling frame and categorizing it by stratum, a first stage selection of sampling units is carried out independently within each stratum. Often, the primary sampling units (PSU) for this stage are cluster locations (e.g. districts, communities, counties, neighborhoods, etc.) which are randomly drawn within each stratum with a probability proportional to the size (PPS) of the cluster (measured by the location’s number of facilities, providers or pupils). Once locations are selected, a second stage takes place by randomly selecting facilities within location (either with equal probability or with PPS) as secondary sampling units. At a third stage, a fixed number of health and education workers and pupils are randomly selected within facilities to provide information for the different questionnaire modules.

Detailed information about the specific sampling process conducted for the 2012 Kenya Education SDI is available in the SDI Country Report (“SDI-Report-Kenya”) included as part of the documentation that accompanies these datasets.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The SDI Education Survey Questionnaire consists of six modules:

Module 1: School Information - Administered to the head of the school to collect information on school type, facilities, school governance, pupil numbers, and school hours. It includes direct observations of school infrastructure by enumerators.

Module 2a: Teacher Absence and Information - Administered to the headteacher and individual teachers to obtain a list of all school teachers, to measure teacher absence, and to collect information on teacher characteristics.

Module 2b: Teacher Absence and Information - Unannounced visit to the school to assess the absence rate.

Module 3: School Finances - Administered to the headteacher to collect information on school finances (this data is unharmonized)

Module 4: Classroom Observation - An observation module to assess teaching activities and classroom conditions.

Module 5: Pupil Assessment - A test of pupils to have a measure of pupil learning outcomes in mathematics and language in grade four. The test is carried out orally and one-on-one with each student by the enumerator.

Module 6: Teacher Assessment - A test of teachers covering mathematics and language subject knowledge and teaching skills.

Cleaning operations

Data entry was done using CSPro; quality control was performed in Stata.

Sampling error estimates

At the national level, an anticipated standard error of 1.6 percentage points for absenteeism, and 4.4 percentage points for pupil literacy were calculated. At the county level, an anticipated standard error of 3.1 percent for absenteeism and 9.0 percent for literacy were estimated.

Abstract

UNHCR India implemented a telephone survey to measure the satisfaction with educational services provided by UNHCR and NGO partners. Most reported financial issues as reasons for their children not attending UNHCR partner led schools and lack of devices for not being able to make use of the online program. The survey also covers a few questions on the impact of COVID-19 on school attendance, and the education quality of public schools. The household survey spans a sample of more than 1,500 households and 2,200 children.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

Refugees in India

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Not Applicable

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Since the beginning of the 1960s, Statistics Sweden, in collaboration with various research institutions, has carried out follow-up surveys in the school system. These surveys have taken place within the framework of the IS project (Individual Statistics Project) at the University of Gothenburg and the UGU project (Evaluation through follow-up of students) at the University of Teacher Education in Stockholm, which since 1990 have been merged into a research project called 'Evaluation through Follow-up'. The follow-up surveys are part of the central evaluation of the school and are based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students.

Evaluation through follow-up (UGU) is one of the country's largest research databases in the field of education. UGU is part of the central evaluation of the school and is based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students. The longitudinal database contains information on nationally representative samples of school pupils from ten cohorts, born between 1948 and 2004. The sampling process was based on the student's birthday for the first two and on the school class for the other cohorts.

For each cohort, data of mainly two types are collected. School administrative data is collected annually by Statistics Sweden during the time that pupils are in the general school system (primary and secondary school), for most cohorts starting in compulsory school year 3. This information is provided by the school offices and, among other things, includes characteristics of school, class, special support, study choices and grades. Information obtained has varied somewhat, e.g. due to changes in curricula. A more detailed description of this data collection can be found in reports published by Statistics Sweden and linked to datasets for each cohort.

Survey data from the pupils is collected for the first time in compulsory school year 6 (for most cohorts). Questionnaire in survey in year 6 includes questions related to self-perception and interest in learning, attitudes to school, hobbies, school motivation and future plans. For some cohorts, questionnaire data are also collected in year 3 and year 9 in compulsory school and in upper secondary school.

Furthermore, results from various intelligence tests and standartized knowledge tests are included in the data collection year 6. The intelligence tests have been identical for all cohorts (except cohort born in 1987 from which questionnaire data were first collected in year 9). The intelligence test consists of a verbal, a spatial and an inductive test, each containing 40 tasks and specially designed for the UGU project. The verbal test is a vocabulary test of the opposite type. The spatial test is a so-called ‘sheet metal folding test’ and the inductive test are made up of series of numbers. The reliability of the test, intercorrelations and connection with school grades are reported by Svensson (1971).

For the first three cohorts (1948, 1953 and 1967), the standartized knowledge tests in year 6 consist of the standard tests in Swedish, mathematics and English that up to and including the beginning of the 1980s were offered to all pupils in compulsory school year 6. For the cohort 1972, specially prepared tests in reading and mathematics were used. The test in reading consists of 27 tasks and aimed to identify students with reading difficulties. The mathematics test, which was also offered for the fifth cohort, (1977) includes 19 assignments. After a changed version of the test, caused by the previously used test being judged to be somewhat too simple, has been used for the cohort born in 1982. Results on the mathematics test are not available for the 1987 cohort. The mathematics test was not offered to the students in the cohort in 1992, as the test did not seem to fully correspond with current curriculum intentions in mathematics. For further information, see the description of the dataset for each cohort.

For several of the samples, questionnaires were also collected from the students 'parents and teachers in year 6. The teacher questionnaire contains questions about the teacher, class size and composition, the teacher's assessments of the class' knowledge level, etc., school resources, working methods and parental involvement and questions about the existence of evaluations. The questionnaire for the guardians includes questions about the child's upbringing conditions, ambitions and wishes regarding the child's education, views on the school's objectives and the parents' own educational and professional situation.

The students are followed up even after they have left primary school. Among other things, data collection is done during the time they are in high school. Then school administrative data such as e.g. choice of upper secondary school line / program and grades after completing studies. For some of the cohorts, in addition to school administrative data, questionnaire data were also collected from the students.

he sample consisted of students born on the 5th, 15th and 25th of any month in 1953, a total of 10,723 students.

The data obtained in 1966 were: 1. School administrative data (school form, class type, year and grades). 2. Information about the parents' profession and education, number of siblings, the distance between home and school, etc.

This information was collected for 93% of all born on the current days. The reason for this is reduced resources for Statistics Sweden for follow-up work - reminders etc. Annual data for cohorts in 1953 were collected by Statistics Sweden up to and including academic year 1972/73.

1. Answers to certain questions that shed light on students' school motivation, leisure activities and study and career plans. Some of the questions changed significantly compared to the cohort in 1948 due to the fact that they did not function satisfactorily from a metrological point of view.
2. Results on three aptitude tests, one verbal, one spatial and one inductive.
3. Standard test results in reading, writing, mathematics and English, which were offered to the students who belonged to year 6.

Response rate for test and questionnaire data is 88% Standard test results were received for just over 85% of those who took the tests.

The sample included a total of 9955 students, for whom some form of information was obtained.

Part of the "Individual Statistics Project" together with cohort 1953.

The Civil Rights Data Collection, 2011-12 (CRDC 2011-12), is part of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) program. CRDC 2011-12 (https://ocrdata.ed.gov/) is a cross-sectional survey that collects data on key education and civil rights issues in the nation's public schools, which include student enrollment and educational programs and services, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. LEAs submit administrative records about schools in the district. CRDC 2011-12 is a universe survey. Key statistics produced from CRDC 2011-12 can provide information about critical civil rights issues as well as contextual information on the state of civil rights in the nation, including enrollment demographics, advanced placement, discipline, and special education services.

The Common Core of Data Nonfiscal Survey, 2014-15 (CCD 2014-15) is a data collection that is part of the Common Core of Data (CCD) program; program data is available since 1986-1987 at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ccddata.asp. CCD-Nonfiscal 2014-15 (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp) is a cross-sectional survey that collected non-fiscal data about all public schools, public school districts, and state education agencies in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Department of Defense schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other outlying jurisdictions. The data were supplied by state education agency officials and included basic information and descriptive statistics on public elementary and secondary schools and schooling in general. Key information produced from CCD-Nonfiscal 2014-15 include information that described schools and school districts, including name, address, and phone number; student counts by race/ethnicity, grade and sex and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff counts by labor category.

Pandemic has influenced all spheres of the humanity. COVID-19 impacted the education vertical in larger manner. Traditional classroom environment plays a very vital role in molding the life of an individual. Bond nurtured in the early ages of the life acts as the great moral support in the latter stages of the journey. As the pandemic has forced us into online education, this data collection aims to analyze the impact of online education. To check out the satisfactory level of the learners, review was conducted.

Gender – Male, Female Home Location – Rural, Urban Level of Education – Post Graduate, School, Under Graduate Age – Years Number of Subjects – 1- 20 Device type used to attend classes – Desktop, Laptop, Mobile Economic status – Middle Class, Poor, Rich Family size – 1 -10 Internet facility in your locality – Number scale (Very Bad to Very Good) Are you involved in any sports? – Yes, No Do elderly people monitor you? – Yes, No Study time – Hours Sleep time – Hours Time spent on social media – Hours Interested in Gaming? – Yes, No Have separate room for studying? – Yes, No Engaged in group studies? – Yes, No Average marks scored before pandemic in traditional classroom – range Your interaction in online mode - Number scale (Very Bad to Very Good) Clearing doubts with faculties in online mode - Number scale (Very Bad to Very Good) Interested in? – Practical, Theory, Both Performance in online - Number scale (Very Bad to Very Good) Your level of satisfaction in Online Education – Average, Bad, Good

radhakrishnan, sujatha (2021), “Online Education System - Review”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/bzk9zbyvv7.1

Dataset Overview 📝

The dataset includes the following key indicators, collected for over 200 countries:

• Government Expenditure on Education (% of GDP): Shows the percentage of a country’s GDP allocated to education.
• Literacy Rate (Adult Total): Represents the percentage of the population aged 15 and above who can read and write.
• Primary Completion Rate: The percentage of children who complete their primary education within the official age group.
• Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Primary and Secondary Education): Indicates the average number of students per teacher at the primary and secondary levels.
• School Enrollment Rates (Primary, Secondary, Tertiary): Reflects the percentage of the relevant age group enrolled in schools across different education levels.

Data Source 🌐

World Bank: This dataset is compiled from the World Bank's educational database, providing reliable, updated statistics on educational progress worldwide.

Potential Use Cases 🔍 This dataset is ideal for anyone interested in:

Educational Research: Understanding how education spending and policies impact literacy, enrollment, and overall educational outcomes. Predictive Modeling: Building models to predict educational success factors, such as completion rates and literacy. Global Education Analysis: Analyzing trends in global education systems and how different countries allocate resources to education. Policy Development: Helping governments and organizations make data-driven decisions regarding educational reforms and funding.

Key Questions You Can Explore 🤔

How does government expenditure on education correlate with literacy rates and school enrollment across different regions? What are the trends in pupil-teacher ratios over time, and how do they affect educational outcomes? How do education indicators differ between low-income and high-income countries? Can we predict which countries will achieve universal primary education based on current trends?

Important Notes ⚠️ - Missing Data: Some values may be missing for certain years or countries. Consider using techniques like forward filling or interpolation when working with time series models. - Data Limitations: This dataset provides global averages and may not capture regional disparities within countries.

This data collection constitutes the third wave of data in the High School and Beyond series. The base-year data (ICPSR 7896) were collected in 1980, and the first follow-up (ICPSR 8297) was conducted in 1982. The series is a longitudinal study of students who were high school sophomores and seniors in 1980. As with the first follow-up, the structure and documentation of High School and Beyond Second Follow-Up data files represent a departure from base-year (1980) practices. While the base-year student file contains data from both the senior and sophomore cohorts, the two follow-up surveys provide separate student files for the two cohorts. Each of the cohort files for this collection merges the base year and first follow-up data with second follow-up data. Data collected for the sophomore cohort second follow-up differ substantially from data collected for the first follow-up since by 1984 the majority of respondents were out of high school and enrolled in postsecondary school, working, or looking for work. File 1, the Sophomore Cohort Second Follow-up Sample File, includes detailed questionnaire responses on background information, education, other training, military experience, work experience, periods unemployed, family information, income, experiences, and opinions. Information is also presented on the kind of school attended, hours per week spent in class, degree, certificate or diploma being sought, and requirements completed. Financial information in this file includes items on tuition and fees, scholarships, and financial aid from parents to the respondent and to any siblings. Work history data, including occupation, industry, gross starting salary, gross income, hours per week worked, and job satisfaction, are available along with data on the family, including the spouse's occupation and education, date of marriage(s), and number of children. File 5, the Senior Cohort Second Follow-up Sample File, repeats many of the same variables that are present in the first follow-up for this cohort. Respondents were asked to update background information, to provide information about postsecondary education, work experience, military service, family, income, and life goals. New items include a limited series on computer literacy (e.g., use of computers and software, knowledge of computer language), detailed information on financial assistance received from parents for pursuing postsecondary education, education and training outside of regular school, college or military programs (on-the-job and other employer-provided training), and periods of unemployment. Files 9,11,12, and 13 contain transcript data from each postsecondary institution reported by sample members of the High School and Beyond elder cohort (1980 senior cohort) in their responses to the High School and Beyond First Follow-up (1982) and Second Follow-up (1984) surveys. Data are available for several types of postsecondary institutions, ranging from short-term vocational or occupational programs through major universities with graduate programs and professional schools. Data in these four rectangular files--Student, Transcript, Term, and Course Files--are organized to be used in combination hierarchically. Information is available on terms of attendance, fields of study, specific courses taken, and grades and credits earned. A supplementary survey, the Administrator and Teacher Survey (ATS), was conducted in 1984 in approximately half of the schools sampled in the original High School and Beyond study. The ATS was designed to explore findings from research on effective schools, which were defined as those schools in which students perform at higher levels than would be expected from their backgrounds and other factors. The ATS provides measures of staff goals, school climates, and other processes identified in the effective schools literature as being important for achieving educational excellence. Separate questionnaires were administered to teachers, administrators, vocational education coordinators, and heads of guidance. Items in the questionnaires were selected to complement information already in the High School and Beyond database. Included were questions on staff goals, pedagogic practices, interpersonal relations of staff, work load of teachers, staff attitudes, availability and use of guidance services, planning processes, hiring practices, specia

The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a biennial (i.e., every other school year) survey required by the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) since 1968. The CRDC collects a variety of information including student enrollment and educational programs and services, most of which is disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. The CRDC is a longstanding and important aspect of the ED Office for Civil Rights (OCR) overall strategy for administering and enforcing the civil rights statutes for which it is responsible. Data was reported directly from the school districts to the Office of Civil Rights. This data process is not managed by OSPI and therefore the data is not validated or reviewed by OSPI before being reported to OCR. For this reason data presented in this file will not mirror OSPI reports on similar student and school measures. In some cases data was unavailable or suppressed by OCR to protect student privacy, for more information on this please visit the CRDC webpage. In addition, directory information for some schools is incomplete, as the names of the organizations provided in the CRDC data files did not match the names of organizations on record with OSPI. For additional information or questions about this data please visit the CRDC webpage at https://ocrdata.ed.gov/.

The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework that will enhance and facilitate effective, efficient, and timely data collection from schools to the Public School System and all stakeholders. It is designed to ensure that the collection and entry of data is undertaken with care and concern to continually raise the quality of data in the Marshall Islands Education Management Information System (MIEMIS) database

The Development for Codes of Conduct in Online Classrooms of Vietnamese High School Students (CCOCVHSS) dataset includes 06 files with different formats (.doc, .cvs, .sav) to suit each step in the process of developing items of CCOCVHSS, specifically as follows: 1. Initial_Items_Pool.docx: presents 34 items developed by the research team based on the overview and analysis of research documents related to student behavior in the online learning environment in relation to teachers and other students with two main aspects: attitude and behavior, along with codes of conduct for students at general schools for online learning. 2. Experts_Judge_Results.xlsx: includes 07 columns and 35 rows, in which the columns correspond to data fields. Meanwhile, the rows show information about each item code, the content of that item, each expert's rating for that item, the total score of that item, and the analysis results of the proportions of the three rating levels. 3. Questionare_Of_CCOCVHSS.docx: is a questionnaire designed to serve the data collection with three parts: (1) Introduction and declaration of consent; (2) Demographic information; and (3) Questions. 4. CCOCVHSS _rawdata.csv: is the data used for analysis that has been cleaned from the raw data collected from the online survey.