Education Data Security Market Outlook

The education data security market size is anticipated to grow from USD 2.3 billion in 2023 to USD 5.9 billion by 2032, exhibiting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.1%. This growth is primarily driven by the increasing adoption of digital technologies in educational institutions and the rising concerns over data privacy and protection. As the education sector continues to embrace digital learning platforms, the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access to sensitive information has significantly increased, necessitating robust security measures. Consequently, the demand for advanced data security solutions in educational settings is on the rise, propelling the market forward.

One of the primary growth factors for the education data security market is the increasing digitization in the education sector. With the advent of e-learning platforms, online exams, and digital classrooms, large volumes of sensitive data, such as student records and academic results, are being generated and stored. This surge in digital data has made educational institutions prime targets for cyberattacks. As a result, these institutions are investing heavily in advanced security solutions to protect their data from potential breaches and ensure compliance with data protection regulations. The growing awareness about the importance of data security in safeguarding personal information is also encouraging educational institutions to allocate a significant portion of their budgets to data security solutions.

Additionally, regulatory compliance is a significant driver for the growth of the education data security market. Governments worldwide are implementing stringent data protection regulations to safeguard citizens' personal information. For instance, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in the United States mandate strict compliance with data security norms for educational institutions. These regulations require institutions to implement comprehensive data security measures to avoid penalties and reputational damage. Consequently, educational institutions are increasingly adopting advanced data security solutions to ensure compliance with these regulations, thus boosting the market's growth.

The increasing frequency and sophistication of cyberattacks targeting educational institutions are further propelling the demand for data security solutions. Cybercriminals are continually developing new methods to exploit vulnerabilities in educational networks, leading to a growing number of data breach incidents. These incidents not only compromise sensitive information but also disrupt academic activities, causing significant financial and reputational damage to institutions. To mitigate these risks, educational institutions are prioritizing the implementation of robust data security solutions, including firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and encryption technologies. This proactive approach to cybersecurity is driving the growth of the education data security market.

Regionally, North America is expected to lead the education data security market, driven by the high adoption rates of digital learning technologies and stringent data protection regulations. The presence of several key market players and advanced IT infrastructure further supports the dominance of this region. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is anticipated to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, owing to the increasing digitization of educational institutions and government initiatives to improve cybersecurity measures. Countries like China and India are investing significantly in upgrading their educational infrastructure, which includes implementing robust data security solutions, thereby contributing to the market's expansion in this region.

Component Analysis

The education data security market is segmented by component into solutions and services. The solutions segment includes a wide range of security technologies such as encryption, data loss prevention, identity and access management, and firewalls. These solutions are specifically designed to protect educational institutions from data breaches and ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive information. With the increasing volume of data being generated by educational institutions, the demand for comprehensive and integrated security solutions has surged. Institutions are keen on investing in advanced solutions that offer end-to-end protection of their digital assets, thus driving the growth of the solutions segment.</p

This study is to understand how perceptions and the organization of school safety and security are associated with the level and type of law enforcement engagement in rural schools. A triangulation mixed methods design was used to collect and examine individual, school, and community level quantitative and qualitative data. The social-ecological theory of violence prevention guides the research by predicting that an interplay of factors at multiple levels influences the type and level of law enforcement engagement in rural schools. Specifically, it was predicted that the more organized and coordinated a school is in the area of safety and security, the more likely it is to be formally engaged with law enforcement. Formal engagement is defined as use of some version of the school resource officer (SRO) model or defined roles and responsibilities for law enforcement in schools that are articulated in documents such as a memorandum of agreement or understanding.

The global school security market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing concerns over school safety and the rising adoption of advanced security technologies. While precise market sizing data wasn't provided, considering the increasing prevalence of school shootings and cyber threats, alongside the expansion of technological solutions, a reasonable estimation places the 2025 market size at approximately $5 billion USD. This signifies a substantial market opportunity for companies specializing in physical and digital security solutions for educational institutions. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is estimated to be around 8% from 2025-2033, fueled by factors like government mandates for improved school security, increasing parental anxieties, and the need for integrated security systems that encompass both physical protection (surveillance cameras, access control systems) and digital safeguards (cybersecurity solutions, data protection). Key market segments include physical security products (e.g., fencing, alarm systems, security personnel) and digital security products (e.g., intrusion detection systems, video analytics, cybersecurity software). The government segment is expected to be a significant driver due to increasing funding for school safety initiatives, while schools themselves are actively seeking solutions to mitigate various threats. However, budgetary constraints and the challenges of implementing and maintaining complex security systems across diverse school districts could act as restraints to market growth. North America and Europe are likely to dominate the market initially, followed by a rise in demand from the Asia-Pacific region as developing economies prioritize school safety enhancements. The competitive landscape is fragmented, with both established players and smaller specialized firms vying for market share. Successful players will need to offer comprehensive, integrated solutions and demonstrate a strong understanding of the unique security needs of educational institutions. The market’s expansion will be characterized by increasing demand for intelligent video surveillance systems with advanced analytics, integrating AI and machine learning for threat detection and response. Cybersecurity will become increasingly crucial, with a focus on protecting sensitive student data and preventing ransomware attacks. The adoption of cloud-based security management platforms will also gain traction, enabling centralized monitoring and control across multiple school sites. The market’s growth trajectory will depend on effective partnerships between technology providers, educational institutions, and government agencies to ensure the widespread adoption and successful implementation of these advanced security solutions. The ongoing evolution of threats necessitates continuous innovation and adaptation within the industry to meet the evolving needs of a safer school environment.

This report provides data regarding students enrolled in New York City schools during the 2012-2013 school year, according to the guidelines set by Local Law 2011/042. Consistent with other school-year reporting, these results include students enrolled and events that occurred between October 26, 2012 and July 1, 2013. Prior to October 26th, 15,552 students transferred between New York City schools, 4,758 students were discharged outside of NYC schools, and 3,592 students dropped out or were discharged under other codes. School level results represent all events for all students. School level results are not presented for District 79 programs or YABCs. All results exclude District 84. Citywide, Borough, and District results represent the last discharge or transfer for each student. 32 students in grades six through eight and 147 students in grades nine through twelve enrolled in school at correctional facilities or detention programs during the 2012-13 school year. Pursuant to the legislation and in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), if a category contains between 0 and 9 students, the number has been replaced with a symbol. In addition, certain numbers have been replaced with a symbol when they could reveal, through addition or subtraction of other numbers that have not been redacted, the underlying count of a number that has been redacted. Codes for dropouts and other accountable discharges include 02, 12, 21, 29, 35, and 39. In addition, codes 08X, 10X, and 11X are considered dropouts in order to align with state guidance. These codes reflect the subset of all discharges that indicate that a student has discontinued schooling without having obtained a diploma.

Education Data Security Tools Market Outlook

The global market size for education data security tools was valued at approximately USD 2.5 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach around USD 7.3 billion by 2032, exhibiting a robust CAGR of 12.5% over the forecast period. The growing adoption of digital technologies in educational institutions is a significant growth factor driving the market.

One of the primary growth factors for the education data security tools market is the increasing prevalence of cyber threats targeting educational institutions. Cybercrimes, such as data breaches and ransomware attacks, have seen a notable increase, compelling schools and universities to invest heavily in robust security solutions. The need for safeguarding sensitive student and faculty information, as well as proprietary academic research, has become paramount. This has led to a marked rise in demand for advanced data security tools that can provide comprehensive protection against sophisticated cyber threats.

Additionally, the shift towards online and remote learning environments has further accelerated the demand for education data security tools. The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the adoption of virtual learning platforms, which require secure channels for data transmission and storage. As educational institutions increasingly rely on digital platforms for teaching and administrative functions, the risk of data breaches amplifies, necessitating the deployment of sophisticated security measures. This ongoing digital transformation within the education sector is expected to sustain the growth momentum of the market over the coming years.

Moreover, regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements are becoming increasingly stringent, propelling institutions to prioritize data security. Governments worldwide are enforcing regulations that mandate the protection of student data, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in the United States. Compliance with these regulations necessitates the implementation of advanced security tools, thereby driving market growth. Educational institutions are also increasingly aware of the reputational damage and financial losses associated with data breaches, further highlighting the importance of robust data security measures.

Regionally, North America is expected to dominate the education data security tools market, primarily due to the high adoption rate of advanced technologies and stringent regulatory frameworks. The region's strong focus on cybersecurity in educational institutions, coupled with significant investments in digital infrastructure, is likely to sustain its market leadership. Europe also shows promising growth, driven by stringent data protection regulations and a proactive approach towards cybersecurity in education. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness substantial growth, fueled by the expanding digital education sector and increasing awareness regarding data security in emerging economies.

Component Analysis

The education data security tools market can be segmented by component into software, hardware, and services. The software segment holds a significant share of the market due to the extensive range of cybersecurity solutions available, including encryption software, identity and access management tools, and data loss prevention systems. Software solutions are preferred for their adaptability and ease of integration with existing IT infrastructures. Additionally, the continuous advancement in cybersecurity technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, enhances software solutions' capabilities in threat detection and response, further propelling the segment's growth.

On the other hand, the hardware segment, though smaller in comparison, plays a crucial role in the overall data security ecosystem. Hardware solutions, such as secure servers, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems, provide a foundational layer of security. Institutions with on-premises data centers particularly benefit from robust hardware security measures. The increasing trend towards hybrid IT environments, combining on-premises and cloud-based solutions, further fuels the demand for hardware security tools, ensuring a comprehensive security strategy.

The services segment is also projected to experience significant growth, driven by the need for expert consultation and tailored security solutions. Educational institutions often lack the in-house expertise required to manage

This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the standard trends questions, instead focusing on public opinion in the following major areas: consumer rights, personal data protection, education through sport, product safety, e-commerce, persons with disabilities, and national currency. Respondents were asked about opportunities to settle disputes with a seller or service provider including actions taken to settle dispute and type of product or service. A number of questions asked regarded the current justice system including the respondents' level of trust in the system, areas that need improvement, and what resources are available to protect consumer rights. Respondents were also asked about whether they were concerned with the privacy of their personal data. Questions sought the respondents' level of trust in national organizations, opinion of what data protection laws should entail, and whether they had used tools or technology to protect personal data. Respondents were also asked about their participation in sports activities. Questions included how often they perform recreational activities, where they exercise, what are the benefits and values of sports, and what are the anticipated outcomes due to the negative aspects of sports. Regarding safety instructions, respondents were asked if they purchase domestic electrical appliances. A number of questions focused on product safety information. Respondents were asked whether they read and obey the information provided on the product, whether the information impacted their purchase and/or use of the product, and the most effective way to provide product instructions. Several questions asked the respondent to recognize safety symbols labeled on the product, the symbol's effectiveness, and whether it impacted their purchase decision. Respondents were also asked whether they purchased products on the internet, how often, concerns regarding their internet transactions, why they purchased online, and from what Web sites they purchased. Other questions asked regarded the security of internet transactions including the respondents knowledge of consumer rights, internet security, protection laws concerning internet purchases, who they contacted if help was needed, and their past experience with complaints on internet transactions. Respondents were also asked questions about persons with disabilities including knowledge of European programs for persons with disabilities, their knowledge of various types of disabilities, and their view of persons with disabilities. Lastly, respondents in the euro-zone, were asked questions that pertained to national currency including how pleased they were with the establishment of the Euro as the universal currency. Demographic and other background information collected includes respondents' age, gender, marital status, nationality, left-right political self-placement, age at completion of education, occupation, household income group, type and size of locality, and region of residence.

The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), formerly administered as the Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Survey, is an important part of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) strategy for administering and enforcing civil rights laws in the nation’s public school districts and schools. The CRDC collects a variety of information including student access to rigorous courses, programs, resources, instructional and other school staff, and school climate factors such as student discipline and harassment and bullying. Much of the data is disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, disability and whether students are English Learners.Since the 2011–12 school year, OCR has collected data from all public districts and their schools in the 50 states and Washington, DC. Over time the CRDC’s collection universe has grown to include long-term secure justice facilities, charter schools, alternative schools, and special education schools that focus primarily on serving students with disabilities. OCR added the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the CRDC, beginning with the 2017-18 CRDC. From 1968 to 2010, civil rights data were collected from a sample of public districts and their schools, except for the 1976 and 2000 collections, which included data from all public schools and districts.The purpose of the CRDC Archival Download Tool (Archival Tool) is to make the Department’s civil rights data from 1968 to 1998 publicly available. The Archival Tool organizes civil rights data by year, and provides users with access to the data, survey forms, and other relevant documentation. The tool also includes documentation on key historical CRDC data changes from 1968 to 1998. Users may extract district-level civil rights data.Important Consideration: Past collections and publicly released reports may contain some terms that readers may consider obsolete, offensive and/or inappropriate. As part of the Department’s goal to be open and transparent with the public, we are providing access to all civil rights data in its original format.Privacy notice:The Department of Education’s Disclosure Review Board determined that the CRDC files for 1968-1998 are safe for public “re-release” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99).

The National Pupil Database (NPD) is one of the richest education datasets in the world. It is a longitudinal database which links pupil characteristics to information about attainment for those who attend schools and colleges in England.

There are a range of data sources in the NPD providing detailed information about children's education at different stages (pre-school, primary and secondary education and further education).

Pupil level information was first collected in January 2002 as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). The School Census replaced the PLASC in 2006 for secondary schools and in 2007 for nursery, primary and special schools. The School Census is carried out three times a year in the spring, summer and autumn terms (January, May and October respectively) and provides the Department for Education with both pupil and school-level data.

The NPD is available through the UK Data Archive in three tiers. Tiers two and three are the most sensitive and must be accessed via the Archive's safe room, whereas tier four can be accessed remotely through the Archive's Secure Lab.

Tier two contains individual pupil level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Individual pupil level extracts include sensitive information about pupils and their characteristics, including items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the UK Data Protection Act 1998 which have been recoded to become less sensitive. Examples of sensitive data items include ethnic group major, ethnic group minor, language group major, language group minor, Special Educational Needs and eligibility for Free School Meals.

Tier three represents aggregated school level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Included are aggregated extracts of school level data from the Department of Education's School Level Database which include items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the Data Protection Act 1998 and could include small numbers and single counts. For example, there is 1 white boy eligible for Free School Meals in school x who did not achieve level 4 in English and maths at Key Stage 2.

Tier four represents less sensitive data than tiers two and three. Included are individual pupil level extracts that do not contain information about pupils and their characteristics which are considered to be identifying or described as sensitive personal data within the Data Protection Act 1998. For example, the extracts may include information about pupil attainment, prior attainment, progression and pupil absences but do not include any identifying data items like names and addresses and any information about pupil characteristics other than gender.

Extracts from the NPD are also available directly from the Department of Education through GOV.UK's National pupil database: apply for a data extract web page.

The fourth edition (September 2017) includes a data file and documentation for the year 2016.

The purpose of this research was to develop an accurate description of the current involvement of law enforcement in schools. The researchers administered a school survey (Part 1) as well as a law enforcement survey (Part 2 and Part 3). The school survey was designed specifically for this research, but did incorporate items from previous surveys, particularly the School Survey on Crime and Safety and the National Assessment of School Resource Officer Programs Survey of School Principals. The school surveys were then sent out to a total of 3,156 school principals between January 2002 and May 2002. The researchers followed Dillman's mail survey design and received a total of 1,387 completed surveys. Surveys sent to the schools requested that each school identify their primary and secondary law enforcement providers. Surveys were then sent to those identified primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3) in August 2002. Part 2 and Part 3 each contain 3,156 cases which matches the original sample size of schools. For Part 2 and Part 3, a total of 1,508 law enforcement surveys were sent to both primary and secondary law enforcement agencies. The researchers received 1,060 completed surveys from the primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and 86 completed surveys from the secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3). Part 1, School Survey Data, included a total of 309 variables pertaining to school characteristics, type of law enforcement relied on by the schools, school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement officers, frequency of private security activities, safety plans and meetings with law enforcement, and crime/disorder in schools. Part 2, Primarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, and Part 3, Secondarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, each contain 161 variables relating to school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement agencies, safety plans and meetings with schools, and crime/disorder in schools reported to police according to primary/secondary law enforcement.

This is a current list of approved security guard schools. The Security Guard Act of 1992 requires registration and training of security guards in New York State. The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) approves the private security training schools and provides administrative oversight for mandated security training.

1) Register is as of reporting date 2) Only includes schools and programs in Districts 1-32 and District 75 3) NYCEECs and District PreK Centers are excluded 4) District 75 Home and Hospital Instruction programs and students are excluded 5) Percents are of active students ages 5 and up, not of all students (any four year olds are exluded as they are not yet eligible for vaccination) 1) Enrollment as of last day of reporting period 2) Only schools and programs in Districts 1-32 and District 75 3) NYCEECs and District PreK Centers are excluded 4) District 75 Home and Hospital Instruction programs and students are excluded 5) For consent and consent withdrawal, only Covid-19 testing eligible students are included (Grades 1-12) 6) For unvaccinated population, only students aged 5 or above as of the day before the beginning of the reporting period are included "7) Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), educational agencies and institutions reporting or releasing data derived from education records are responsible for protecting personally identifiable information (PII) in their reports from disclosure. a) If a cell is ≤ 5 the value is suppressed (""S""), and the next highest value in that row is also suppressed (""S""). b) If a cell is within 5 of the total number of students for the subgroup, the value is suppressed (""T""), and the next highest value in that row is also suppressed (""T""). This is necessary, because it is a FERPA violation to disclose that no students in a subgroup were vaccinated. This report includes counts of unvaccinated students, therefore data suppression is necessary on the maximum values also." 8) An empty cell indicates that there are no students for that grade or subgroup

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The National Pupil Database (NPD) is one of the richest education datasets in the world. It is a longitudinal database which links pupil characteristics to information about attainment for those who attend schools and colleges in England. There are a range of data sources in the NPD providing detailed information about children's education at different stages (pre-school, primary and secondary education and further education). Pupil level information was first collected in January 2002 as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). The School Census replaced the PLASC in 2006 for secondary schools and in 2007 for nursery, primary and special schools. The School Census is carried out three times a year in the spring, summer and autumn terms (January, May and October respectively) and provides the Department for Education with both pupil and school-level data. The NPD is available through the UK Data Archive in three tiers. Tiers two and three are the most sensitive and must be accessed via the Archive's safe room, whereas tier four can be accessed remotely through the Archive's Secure Lab. Tier two contains individual pupil level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Individual pupil level extracts include sensitive information about pupils and their characteristics, including items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the UK Data Protection Act 1998 which have been recoded to become less sensitive. Examples of sensitive data items include ethnic group major, ethnic group minor, language group major, language group minor, Special Educational Needs and eligibility for Free School Meals. Tier three represents aggregated school level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Included are aggregated extracts of school level data from the Department of Education's School Level Database which include items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the Data Protection Act 1998 and could include small numbers and single counts. For example, there is 1 white boy eligible for Free School Meals in school x who did not achieve level 4 in English and maths at Key Stage 2. Tier four represents less sensitive data than tiers two and three. Included are individual pupil level extracts that do not contain information about pupils and their characteristics which are considered to be identifying or described as sensitive personal data within the Data Protection Act 1998. For example, the extracts may include information about pupil attainment, prior attainment, progression and pupil absences but do not include any identifying data items like names and addresses and any information about pupil characteristics other than gender. Extracts from the NPD are also available directly from the Department of Education through GOV.UK's National pupil database: apply for a data extract web page. The fourth edition (September 2017) includes a data file and documentation for the year 2016.

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

Interested parties can now request extracts of data from the NPD using an improved application process accessed through the following website; GOV.UK The first version of the NPD, including information from the first pupil level School Census matched to attainment information, was produced in 2002. The NPD is one of the richest education datasets in the world holding a wide range of information about pupils and students and has provided invaluable evidence on educational performance to inform independent research, as well as analysis carried out or commissioned by the department. There are a range of data sources in the NPD providing information about children’s education at different phases. The data includes detailed information about pupils’ test and exam results, prior attainment and progression at each key stage for all state schools in England. The department also holds attainment data for pupils and students in non-maintained special schools, sixth form and further education colleges and (where available) independent schools. The NPD also includes information about the characteristics of pupils in the state sector and non-maintained special schools such as their gender, ethnicity, first language, eligibility for free school meals, awarding of bursary funding for 16-19 year olds, information about special educational needs and detailed information about any absences and exclusions. Extracts of the data from NPD can be shared (under strict terms and conditions) with named bodies and third parties who, for the purpose of promoting the education or well-being of children in England, are:- • Conducting research or analysis • Producing statistics; or • Providing information, advice or guidance. The department wants to encourage more third parties to use the data for these purposes and produce secondary analysis of the data. All applications go through a robust approval process and those granted access are subject to strict terms and conditions on the security, handling and use of the data, including compliance with the Data Protection Act. Anyone requesting access to the most sensitive data will also be required to submit a business case. More information on the application process including the User Guide, Application Form, Security Questionnaire and a full list of data items available can be found from the NPD web page at:- https://www.gov.uk/national-pupil-database-apply-for-a-data-extract

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.

This Act sets out that school boards must establish and maintain policies to protect students attending their schools who have life-threatening allergies. The policies aim to reduce a student’s risk of exposure to life-threatening allergens at school, while providing school board employees with the necessary measures to respond to an anaphylactic reaction, including the maintenance of at least one epinephrine auto-injector in each school. This Act also protects school board employees from liability in the event of their involvement in an emergency administration of medication.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is federal legislation that ensures educational rights and protection for youth and children experiencing homelessness. According to federal legislation, any child who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence is considered homeless. If a student is found eligible for services under the McKinney-Vento Act, Norfolk Public Schools can provide transportation, free meals, clothing and school supplies, and referrals to local resources.

This dataset includes, by school year, the total number of students enrolled in Norfolk Public Schools that are identified as homeless. The data is pulled from Virginia’s Program for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth: Project HOPE-Virginia. This dataset will be updated annually.

The global market for security doors in schools, valued at $2506 million in 2025, is projected to experience steady growth, driven by increasing concerns about school safety and security. A Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 3% from 2025 to 2033 indicates a gradual but consistent expansion of this market. Key drivers include rising incidents of school violence and the growing demand for robust security measures in educational institutions. The market is segmented by application (primary, secondary, university, and other) and type (swing door and tandem gate). The preference for specific types likely varies regionally and based on school size and budget constraints. Swing doors are more common in smaller schools and may be favored for ease of use, whereas larger institutions might opt for tandem gates for enhanced security. The trend towards technologically advanced security features, such as integrated access control systems and enhanced materials resistant to forced entry, is further driving market growth. However, the high initial investment associated with installing robust security doors might act as a restraint, especially in schools with limited budgets in certain regions. This is particularly true in developing nations where infrastructure investment may lag behind other areas. This market comprises several key players, including established door manufacturers and specialized security providers. Competition is likely to intensify as manufacturers strive to innovate and offer increasingly sophisticated and cost-effective solutions. Regional variations in market size will be influenced by factors like government regulations, security awareness, and economic conditions. North America and Europe are expected to hold significant market shares, driven by higher security consciousness and greater disposable income, while the Asia-Pacific region may witness substantial growth in coming years, driven by rising infrastructure development and increased spending on educational infrastructure. The projected growth is expected to be relatively consistent across the forecast period, reflecting the sustained need for improved school security. Further market segmentation could reveal additional insights, such as regional preferences for specific door materials (e.g., metal vs. glass) or variations in the adoption of smart security features. While the initial investment might be high, the long-term benefits in terms of student and staff safety are likely to drive sustained demand. Government initiatives and funding programs promoting school safety could significantly influence market growth in several regions. The continuous evolution of security technology will be a critical factor, shaping the future landscape of this market. Manufacturers focusing on innovation, particularly in areas like access control and materials science, are likely to gain a competitive edge. This in-depth report provides a comprehensive analysis of the security doors for schools market, projecting a multi-million-unit market by 2033. The study covers the period 2019-2033, with 2025 as the base and estimated year. It meticulously examines market dynamics, growth drivers, and challenges, offering invaluable insights for stakeholders across the supply chain. This report is essential for manufacturers, distributors, installers, educational institutions, and investors seeking to navigate this crucial sector. High-search-volume keywords like "school security doors," "school entrance security," "bulletproof school doors," "access control school doors," and "K-12 security upgrades" are strategically incorporated throughout the report to maximize search engine visibility.

This dataset contains immunization status of 7th grade students in California in schools with 10 or more 7th grade students enrolled. Smaller schools were excluded to help protect privacy. Students in 7th Grade were considered to have up-to-date immunizations if they had completed the Tdap immunization requirement to receive one dose of any immunization (Tdap, DTaP or DTP) that protects against pertussis on or after their 7th birthday. The California Health and Safety Code Section 120325-75 requires students to provide proof of immunization for school and child care entry. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code Section 120375 and California Code of Regulation Section 6075 require all schools and child care facilities to assess and report annually the immunization status of their enrollees.

Under Assembly Bill 354 (2010), California Health and Safety Code Section 120335 required students in 7th grade to provide documentation of either having received a booster immunization against pertussis or an exemption to immunization. To review individual school coverage and exemption rates in a separate lookup format, go to the School Lookup page at the Immunization Branch's Shots for School website: http://www.shotsforschool.org/lookup/

To see the PDF reports by year go to: https://www.shotsforschool.org/7th-grade/reporting-data/

See the attached file 'Notes on Methods' for data suppression in 2016-2017 data to present.

For earlier years of data: https://www.shotsforschool.org/7th-grade/reporting-data/

Report on Demographic Data in New York City Public Schools, 2020-21Enrollment counts are based on the November 13 Audited Register for 2020. Categories with total enrollment values of zero were omitted. Pre-K data includes students in 3-K. Data on students with disabilities, English language learners, and student poverty status are as of March 19, 2021. Due to missing demographic information in rare cases and suppression rules, demographic categories do not always add up to total enrollment and/or citywide totals. NYC DOE "Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch” counts are based on the number of students with families who have qualified for free or reduced-price lunch or are eligible for Human Resources Administration (HRA) benefits. English Language Arts and Math state assessment results for students in grade 9 are not available for inclusion in this report, as the spring 2020 exams did not take place. Spring 2021 ELA and Math test results are not included in this report for K-8 students in 2020-21. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s complete transformation of New York City’s school system during the 2020-21 school year, and in accordance with New York State guidance, the 2021 ELA and Math assessments were optional for students to take. As a result, 21.6% of students in grades 3-8 took the English assessment in 2021 and 20.5% of students in grades 3-8 took the Math assessment. These participation rates are not representative of New York City students and schools and are not comparable to prior years, so results are not included in this report. Dual Language enrollment includes English Language Learners and non-English Language Learners. Dual Language data are based on data from STARS; as a result, school participation and student enrollment in Dual Language programs may differ from the data in this report. STARS course scheduling and grade management software applications provide a dynamic internal data system for school use; while standard course codes exist, data are not always consistent from school to school. This report does not include enrollment at District 75 & 79 programs. Students enrolled at Young Adult Borough Centers are represented in the 9-12 District data but not the 9-12 School data. “Prior Year” data included in Comparison tabs refers to data from 2019-20. “Year-to-Year Change” data included in Comparison tabs indicates whether the demographics of a school or special program have grown more or less similar to its district or attendance zone (or school, for special programs) since 2019-20. Year-to-year changes must have been at least 1 percentage point to qualify as “More Similar” or “Less Similar”; changes less than 1 percentage point are categorized as “No Change”. The admissions method tab contains information on the admissions methods used for elementary, middle, and high school programs during the Fall 2020 admissions process. Fall 2020 selection criteria are included for all programs with academic screens, including middle and high school programs. Selection criteria data is based on school-reported information. Fall 2020 Diversity in Admissions priorities is included for applicable middle and high school programs. Note that the data on each school’s demographics and performance includes all students of the given subgroup who were enrolled in the school on November 13, 2020. Some of these students may not have been admitted under the admissions method(s) shown, as some students may have enrolled in the school outside the centralized admissions process (via waitlist, over-the-counter, or transfer), and schools may have changed admissions methods over the past few years. Admissions methods are only reported for grades K-12. "3K and Pre-Kindergarten data are reported at the site level. See below for definitions of site types included in this report. Additionally, please note that this report excludes all students at District 75 sites, reflecting slightly lower enrollment than our total of 60,265 students in pre-K and 15,480 in 3K for the school year 2020-2021. • Charter: Charter School • FCC: Family Child Care Center, Network Level (FCC enrollment data is reported at the Network level) • Missing – DBN: Missing Site ID, enrollment reported at DBN level • NYCEEC: NYC Early Education Centers (NYCEECs) are independent, community-based organizations that partner with the NYC Department of Education to provide free full-day high-quality pre-K • PKC: Pre-K Center • PS: Public School • SE: Special Education" In order to comply with regulations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) on public reporting of education data, groups with 5 or students are suppressed with an “s”. In addition, groups with the next lowest number of students are suppressed when they could reveal, through addition or subtraction, the underlying numbers that have been redacted.

PLEASE NOTE: The complete data file can be downloaded from the "ATTACHMENT" section