This policy outlines the framework that the MOE uses to assess and manage the risk to the children participating in all of its programs, including any donor-funded programs, and the measures and systems put in place to respond to concerns about their wellbeing.

From 2016 through 2020, Child Trends, in partnership with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, and with funding from the National Institute of Justice's Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, implemented and evaluated the Safe School Certification (SSC) Program, a three-year technical assistance model to support schools in strengthening organizational capacity across eight elements key to improving school climate: leadership, data, buy-in, policy and policy enforcement, student engagement, family and community engagement, training, and programs and practices. To help support schools' efforts, and to evaluate SSC's effectiveness, survey data were collected annually from students, parents, instructional staff, and non-instructional staff at participating schools using the U.S. Department of Education's School Climate Survey (EDSCLS), which was adapted to include measures of sexual orientation and gender identity, grit, and personal experiences of bullying and fights. Additionally, observations using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System - Secondary (CLASS-S) were conducted in a random sample of five classrooms in each participating school each year. Finally, as part of the implementation evaluation, interviews were conducted with the technical assistance providers, points of contact or leadership at participating schools, the SSC developer, and the manager of the Certification Advisory Board (CAB), which provided feedback to schools over the course of implementation through reviews of compiled workbooks.

Users can view brief descriptions of laws and policies pertaining to the health of students Topics include: wellness policy, health education curriculum, school meal programs, physical activity, emergency response, bullying, and facility safety, among others. Background The State School Health Policy Database was developed by the National Association of State Boards of Education and is supported by the Division of Adolescent and School Health of the Centers (DASH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This database is useful for school policymakers interested in viewing strategies and policies across states and researchers and policy evaluators seeking to track changes in polici es across the United States. Topics include: wellness policies, health education curriculum; school meal programs, school food environment, physical activity, drug-free schools, bullying, emergency response, tobacco use, air quality, pesticide use, and facility safety. User Functionality Users can view brief descriptions of laws and policies pertaining to the health of students. When possible, hyperlinks to full written policies are included. Data Notes The data base is updated regularly with new and revised laws and policies from across the United States.

This is a multi-method study of school violence and victimization during the transition to high school. This study has two major data collection efforts. First, a full population survey of 7th through 10th grade students across 10 Flint Community Schools (fall 2016) -- which serve primarily African American and poor populations -- that will identify patterns of student victimization, including the location and seriousness of violent events, and examine the connections between school and community violence. This will be followed by a three-wave panel qualitative study of 100 students interviewed every 6 months beginning in the spring of their 8th grade year (spring 2017) and continuing through their 9th grade year. The goal of the interviews will be to further the research from the survey and develop a deeper understanding of how school safety impacts the transition experience, school violence, including how communities conflict impacts school safety, and what youth do to protect themselves from school-related victimization. Researchers integrated crime incident data from the Flint police department as a source for triangulation of findings. A community workgroup will provide guided translation of findings generated from mixed-methods analyses, and develop an action plan to help students successfully transition to high school. Results and policy implications will be given to practitioner, researcher, and public audiences through written, oral, and web-based forums. De-identified data will be archived at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on behalf of the United States Department of Education (ED). SSOCS collects extensive crime and safety data from principals and school administrators of public schools in America. Data from this collection can be used to correlate school characteristics with violent and serious violent crimes in American schools. Furthermore, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what school programs, practices, and policies are used by schools in their efforts to prevent crime. SSOCS has been conducted three times, in school years 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. The 2003-2004 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2004) was developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by Abt Associates Inc. Questionnaire packets were mailed to 3,743 public primary, middle, high, and combined schools. A total of 2,772 public schools submitted usable questionnaires for a weighted response rate of 77.2 percent. Data were collected from March 1, 2004, to June 4, 2004.

Many schools have implemented programs to address bullying, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), or broader school behavioral issues, such as School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), but there have been calls to integrate school interventions in order to address the limits of each "stand alone" program. The purpose of this project was to develop an intervention combining OBPP and SWPBIS strategies into one integrated program, evaluate its effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (RCT), analyze the program's cost effectiveness, and examine the use of school-based mental health services in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Implications for policy and strategy are also discussed. School-level data were presented including disciplinary incidents, student and teacher attendance, program costs, and the presence of mental health services. Students and teachers within intervention and control conditions were surveyed about their perceptions of bullying, school safety, and school climate. Teachers in intervention schools were asked about program satisfaction, self-efficacy, and fidelity. Students were asked numerous questions pertaining to physical and mental health, bullying perpetration and victimization, and substance abuse. Teachers and students were asked their grade, gender, and race.

This research topic focuses on understanding how Information Security Policy Compliance (ISPC) influences the protection of patient privacy within healthcare organizations, with a specific focus on the mediating role of Security Education, Training, and Awareness (SETA) programs.

The global data protection software market is approximated at a valuation of US$ 1.97 billion in 2024 and is forecasted to increase at a CAGR of 28% to reach US$ 23.2 billion by 2034-end.

Report Attribute	Detail
Data Protection Software Market Size (2024E)	US$ 1.97 Billion
Forecasted Market Value (2034F)	US$ 23.2 Billion
Global Market Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28% CAGR
South Korea Market Value (2034F)	US$ 1.24 Billion
On-premise Data Protection Software Demand Growth (2024 to 2034)	27.4% CAGR
Key Companies Profiled	McAfee, LLC; TrustArc Inc.; OneTrust LLC; Commvault; Microsoft Corporation; Varonis Systems, Inc.; Micro Focus International Plc.; Forcepoint LLC; IBM Corporation; SAP SE; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Symantec Corporation; NetApp, Inc.; Veeam Software; RSA Security LLC; Informatica LLC; Proofpoint, Inc.; Veritas Technologies; Dell EMC; Cloudian, Inc.; Bitdefender; Spirion LLC; Integris Software Inc.; Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE); Check Point Software Technologies.

Country-wise Analysis

Attribute	United States
Market Value (2024E)	US$ 209.1 Million
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.5% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 2.57 Billion

Attribute	Japan
Market Value (2024E)	US$ 127.3 Million
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.6% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 1.58 Billion

Category-wise Analysis

Attribute	Cloud-based Data Protection Software Solutions
Segment Value (2024E)	US$ 1.14 Billion
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.4% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 13.9 Billio

Attribute	SMEs
Segment Value (2024E)	US$ 1.26 Billion
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	27.4% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 14.2 Billion

The indicator measures the number of children who had been the subject of a Child Protection Plan continuously for two years or longer against the number of children ceasing to be the subject of a Child Protection Plan during the year, expressed as percentage

Source: CPR3 statutory return form local authorities to Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF).

Publisher: DCLG Floor Targets Interactive

Geographies: County/Unitary Authority, Government Office Region (GOR), National

Geographic coverage: England

Time coverage: 2006/07 to 2008/09

Type of data: Administrative data

Context

The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans to countries of the world for capital projects. The World Bank's stated goal is the reduction of poverty. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

Content

This dataset combines key education statistics from a variety of sources to provide a look at global literacy, spending, and access.

For more information, see the World Bank website.

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:world_bank_health_population

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ed-stats

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/world-bank-education

Citation: The World Bank: Education Statistics

Dataset Source: World Bank. This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source - http://www.data.gov/privacy-policy#data_policy - and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by @till_indeman from Unplash.

Inspiration

Of total government spending, what percentage is spent on education?

Number of violent attacks, threats or deliberate use of force in a given time period (e.g. the last 12 months, a school year or a calendar year) directed against students, teachers and other personnel or against education buildings, materials and facilities, including transport. The indicator focuses on attacks carried out for political, military, ideological, sectarian, ethnic or religious reasons by armed forces or nonstate armed groups. The indicator is a broad measure of the safety of learning environments, particularly in relation to armed conflict and political violence. Available data for global tracking are presently collected from reporting by a wide variety of stakeholders, including national and international NGOs working at the country-level and national and international media reports. Attacks on education include the following sub-categories: • Attacks on schools: targeted violent attacks on preschool, kindergarten, primary, and secondary school buildings or infrastructure by state military forces or non-state armed groups in the form of arson; suicide, car, or other bombs aimed at a school; or artillery fire directed at a school. In addition, this category includes indiscriminate attacks that result in the damage or destruction of school infrastructure as well as explosions that occur in close proximity to a school. • Attacks on students, teachers, and other education personnel: killings, injuries, torture, abductions, forced disappearances, or threats of violence, including coercion or extortion involving violent threats directed towards students and education staff who work at the primary and secondary levels. Since it is sometimes difficult to identify why a teacher or school staff member is killed if the assassination occurs outside of school, this category also includes such attacks in cases where there is an established pattern of that kind of violence. The category of attacks on students, teachers, and other education personnel also includes cases where police or state security forces violently repress student protests that either occur at school, or, if they occur off-campus, focus on education-related policies and laws. • Military use of schools and universities: cases in which armed forces or non-state armed groups take over schools or universities as bases, barracks and temporary shelters to house soldiers or fighters, fighting positions, weapons storage facilities, detention and interrogation centres, or for other military purposes. • Recruitment of children at schools or along school routes: cases in which armed forces or nonstate armed groups use schools or school routes as locales for recruiting children under the age of 18 into their fighting forces in violation of international standards. • Sexual violence by parties to the conflict: incidents of sexual abuse and harassment perpetrated at schools or universities or along school routes. • Attacks on higher education: include targeted violent attacks on universities in the form of bombings, airstrikes, arson, or other means, as well as targeted killings, abductions, or threats directed at university students, faculty, or staff. The category includes cases of violent repression of student protests that either occur at institutions of higher education, or, if they occur off-campus, focus on education-related policies and laws. This indicator is based on data compiled by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA) for its report Education under Attack. Information from three types of data sources: reports released by UN agencies, development and humanitarian NGOs, human rights organizations, government bodies, and think tanks; media reports; and information shared with GCPEA by staff members of international and national organizations working in the countries profiled in this study.

Attitude to data protection.

Topics: Occupational contact with personal data; self-assessment of willingness to provide information about personal matters regarding authorities; detailed determination of type and frequency of contacts with authorities; perceived disturbances by the requests for personal data by authorities; personal determination of wrong decisions by authorities due to incorrect storage of personal data; attitude to a data protection law and assessment of a government demand for storage of personal data; detailed determinations of those authorities to whom one would provide information without hesitation; assessment of the danger of abuse of data; attitude to a personal identification and a computer network of authorities; attitude to innovations and computers; attitude to protection of the private sphere; classification of activities in the areas private sphere and public; receipt of social services; type of borrowing and taxes paid; completed insurance policies; last medical treatment and number of visits to the doctor in the last year; last hospital stay; membership in clubs or citizen initiatives; self-assessment of status in various roles, such as e.g. patient, borrower, citizen, insurance policy holder or in occupation; satisfaction with democracy and the political system in the FRG; attitude to reforms and more social justice; relationship with neighborhood; assessment of the size of personal circle of friends.

Scales: attitudes to democracy and the social system.

Demography: age; sex; marital status; school education; vocational training; occupation; employment; household income; size of household; composition of household; head of household; self-assessment of social class.

description: The 2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016) is a data collection that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program; program data are available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. Regular public schools were sampled. The data collection was conducted using a mail questionnaire with telephone follow-up. The data collection s response rate was 62.9 percent. Key statistics produced from SSOCS:2016 include the frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.; abstract: The 2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016) is a data collection that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program; program data are available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. Regular public schools were sampled. The data collection was conducted using a mail questionnaire with telephone follow-up. The data collection s response rate was 62.9 percent. Key statistics produced from SSOCS:2016 include the frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.

This study examined safety and security in Finnish schools as well as preparedness for safety disturbances and detrimental behaviour in the school environment. The respondents of the survey were rectors and vice rectors in Finnish primary and upper secondary schools. The study was commissioned and funded by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy at the University of Helsinki. Three different questionnaires were used to collect the data depending on the type of the institution (primary school, upper secondary school, combined primary and upper secondary school). The data were processed according to the questionnaire for primary schools because primary schools constituted the majority of responses, but variables specific to a certain type of institution are indicated in the data. First, the study charted background information concerning e.g. class sizes in the school, how long the respondent had worked for the school, which grades were taught in the school, and how many times during a given day students had to switch from one classroom to another. It was also queried whether a school social worker, a school psychologist and a school nurse/doctor visited the school at least once per week. The next questions covered the school environment with questions regarding whether a variety of phenomena occurred near the school premises, e.g. panhandling, littering, drug use/sale or vandalism. It was also charted which services and locations were found within 500 metres of the school building as well as what sort of security personnel worked at the school during and outside school hours. The respondents were also asked whether syringes or other items relating to drug use had been found on school premises during the school year 2015-2016. The next questions pertained to whether the school had adopted specific security-increasing practices, such as camera surveillance, access control in school buildings, personal user accounts and passwords for computers, restricted access to internet sites, anti-bullying campaigns, and collaboration with the police. It was also queried what sort of punishments the school used for student misbehaviour (e.g. removing a student from class, teacher-parent discussion, detention or expulsion). Next, incidents of criminal behaviour against the school and the school building were examined (e.g. intentional damage to school or staff property, breaking and entering into school premises, arson or attempted arson, harm to information systems). It was also asked if any crimes had been reported to the police and what the monetary extent of intentional damage to school property had been during the school year 2015-2016. Cases of defamation, violence or threat of violence against personnel were charted, as well as how many days staff members had spent absent from work due to these crimes during the school year 2015-2016. Different crimes against students were also charted, such as bicycle and cellphone thefts and violence, as well as whether these cases were reported to the police. Further questions were asked about the perpetrators and victims of violent crimes, such as their gender and national background, and whether the crime was motivated by e.g. skin colour or sexual orientation. Next, the study surveyed whether students or other persons had brought dangerous items, such as knives or other weapons, into school premises during school hours and whether the school had reported these incidents to the police. Certain phenomena, such as racism among students and between students and teachers, were also charted. General threats of violence not against any particular person were also examined as well as whether there was any sign that the maker of the threat would have been preparing to carry out the act. The respondents were also asked if the school had carried out different surveillance and security measures during the school year 2015-2016 (e.g. searching students' bags, clothes or lockers; confiscating dangerous items, alcohol or drugs) and whether these measures had prevented an act or threat of violence or if they had caused a threatening situation. Finally, it was queried whether any students or their parents had threatened the respondent or teachers with legal action or reported a crime to the police where the respondent or teachers were accused. In addition, the respondents' preparedness to report a student's crime to the police in two hypothetical situations was examined (a student paints a graffiti on the school's wall; a student hits another student in the face, causing bruises and bleeding from the nose). The study finally surveyed some more background information on e.g. gender, age, and how many years the respondent had worked as rector or vice rector.

Snapshot img

Cloud Computing Market In K-12 Education Sector Size 2024-2028

The cloud computing market in K-12 education sector size is forecast to increase by USD 51.22 billion at a CAGR of 33.3% between 2023 and 2028.

In the K-12 education sector, cloud computing has emerged as a transformative technology, revolutionizing the way education is delivered. The integration of cloud computing in e-learning has facilitated easy access to educational content from anywhere, anytime. The trend towards IoT integration with cloud computing is further enhancing this accessibility, enabling the use of devices like tablets and glass for interactive learning experiences. However, this shift towards cloud-based solutions also brings about new challenges, particularly In the realm of security. Data security, network security, application security, endpoint security, and multi-factor authentication are key concerns for educators and administrators. Cloud security solutions are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure the safety of sensitive student information. As the adoption of cloud computing continues to grow In the education sector, addressing these security challenges will be crucial for successful implementation.

What will be the Size of the Market During the Forecast Period?

Request Free Sample

The K-12 education sector's adoption of cloud computing continues to gain momentum as schools and districts seek to modernize their IT infrastructure and enhance the learning experience for students. Cloud computing offers numerous benefits, including scalability, cost savings, and access to a vast array of resources. However, this shift to cloud-first organizations also presents new challenges, particularly In the areas of security and user identity management. Traditional security measures, such as firewalls and VPNs, are being supplemented with cloud-based solutions, including network security, user authentication, and endpoint security. In the hybrid world of cloud and on-premises infrastructure, context-aware security policies and user identity management are essential to mitigating risks.
Furthermore, the cloud computing market in K-12 education is characterized by a growing attack surface, with network-based attacks, DDoS, ransomware, malware, and server scanning posing significant threats. Cloud security solutions, such as Zscaler, are increasingly being adopted to address these risks, with a focus on application infrastructure security and a need-to-know model. As the use of cloud computing in K-12 education continues to expand, business policies and user authentication protocols will become increasingly important to ensure data privacy and security. Cloud computing offers a VPN alternative, enabling secure access to resources from anywhere, while maintaining network security and user identity management.

How is this Market segmented and which is the largest segment?

The cloud computing in K-12 education sector industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments.

Service

  Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)
  Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
  Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS)


Geography

  North America

    US


  Europe

    Germany
    UK


  APAC

    China
    Japan


  South America



  Middle East and Africa

By Service Insights

The software-as-a-service (SaaS) segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

The market is primarily driven by the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) segment due to its cost-effective and scalable benefits. SaaS enables schools to access cloud-based applications over the Internet, reducing expenses on installation, licensing, and maintenance. This model allows K-12 institutions to expand their data reach to larger audiences, fostering the exchange of innovative ideas among students. Security is a significant concern in cloud adoption for educational institutions. User identity, context, and business policy are crucial elements of a strong security model. Traditional security measures, such as VPNs, are being replaced by Cloud Security solutions that offer user authentication, resources protection, and access control policies.

Get a glance at the Cloud Computing In K-12 Education Sector Industry report of share of various segments Request Free Sample

The Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) segment was valued at USD 5.74 billion in 2018 and showed a gradual increase during the forecast period.

Regional Analysis

North America is estimated to contribute 62% to the growth of the global market during the forecast period.

Technavio's analysts have elaborately explained the regional trends and drivers that shape the market during the forecast period.

For more insights on the market share o

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity. Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data. The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic _location.

Description of the experiment setting: location, influential climatic conditions, controlled conditions (e.g. temperature, light cycle)In Fall of 2023 the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) conducted the fourth Farm to School Census. The 2023 Census was sent via email to 18,833 school food authorities (SFAs) including all public, private, and charter SFAs, as well as residential care institutions, participating in the National School Lunch Program. The questionnaire collected data on local food purchasing, edible school gardens, other farm to school activities and policies, and outcomes and challenges of participating in farm to school activities. A total of 12,559 SFAs submitted a response to the 2023 Census.Processing methods and equipment usedThe 2023 Census was administered solely via the web. The study team cleaned the raw data to ensure the data were as correct, complete, and consistent as possible. This process involved examining the data for logical errors and removing implausible values. The study team linked the 2023 Census data to information from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD). Records from the CCD were used to construct a measure of urbanicity, which classifies the area in which schools are located.Study date(s) and durationData collection occurred from October 2, 2023 to January 7, 2024. Questions asked about activities prior to, during and after SY 2022-23. The 2023 Census asked SFAs whether they currently participated in, had ever participated in or planned to participate in any of 32 farm to school activities. Based on those answers, SFAs received a defined set of further questions.Study spatial scale (size of replicates and spatial scale of study area)Respondents to the survey included SFAs from all 50 States as well as American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC.Level of true replicationUnknownSampling precision (within-replicate sampling or pseudoreplication)No sampling was involved in the collection of this data.Level of subsampling (number and repeat or within-replicate sampling)No sampling was involved in the collection of this data.Study design (before–after, control–impacts, time series, before–after-control–impacts)None – Non-experimentalDescription of any data manipulation, modeling, or statistical analysis undertakenEach entry in the dataset contains SFA-level responses to the Census questionnaire for SFAs that responded. This file includes information from only SFAs that clicked “Submit” on the questionnaire. (The dataset used to create the 2023 Farm to School Census Report includes additional SFAs that answered enough questions for their response to be considered usable.)In addition, the file contains constructed variables used for analytic purposes. The file does not include weights created to produce national estimates for the 2023 Farm to School Census Report.The dataset identified SFAs, but to protect individual privacy the file does not include any information for the individual who completed the questionnaire. All responses to open-ended questions (i.e., containing user-supplied text) were also removed to protect privacy.Description of any gaps in the data or other limiting factorsSee the full 2023 Farm to School Census Report [https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/f2s/2023-census] for a detailed explanation of the study’s limitations.Outcome measurement methods and equipment usedNone

ABSTRACT This article aims to examine the ways in which relevant formulators of schooling policies operate under a concept of social protection that is associated with and produced under the neoliberal gendarme. By enrolling in the field of schooling policies, it analyzes how social protection is dimensioned and intensified based on the logic of the school’s expanded social responsibility. Firstly, it places policymakers in a broader scope. Secondly, it deepens reflection about the Brazilian reality and offers some provocations. Methodologically, the article is based mainly on theoretical-political digressions from a critical perspective of analysis. The concepts of social protection presented here refer to the school as a place of welcome and protection, with creative spaces both inside and outside formal systems and the development of adaptable and flexible programs.

Rreferrals, assessment and children and young people who are the subjects of child protection plans (on the child protection register) from year ending March 2009