Read the Department of Education policies.

Abstract

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level. We also wish to detect differences by urban/rural location.

For our school survey, we will employ a two-stage random sample design, where in the first stage a sample of typically around 200 schools, based on local conditions, is drawn, chosen in advance by the Bank staff. In the second stage, a sample of teachers and students will be drawn to answer questions from our survey modules, chosen in the field. A total of 10 teachers will be sampled for absenteeism. Five teachers will be interviewed and given a content knowledge exam. Three 1st grade students will be assessed at random, and a classroom of 4th grade students will be assessed at random. Stratification will be based on the school’s urban/rural classification and based on region. When stratifying by region, we will work with our partners within the country to make sure we include all relevant geographical divisions.

For our Survey of Public Officials, we will sample a total of 200 public officials. Roughly 60 officials are typically surveyed at the federal level, while 140 officials will be surveyed at the regional/district level. For selection of officials at the regional and district level, we will employ a cluster sampling strategy, where roughly 10 regional offices (or whatever the secondary administrative unit is called) are chosen at random from among the regions in which schools were sampled. Then among these 10 regions, we also typically select around 10 districts (tertiary administrative level units) from among the districts in which schools werer sampled. The result of this sampling approach is that for 10 clusters we will have links from the school to the district office to the regional office to the central office. Within the regions/districts, five or six officials will be sampled, including the head of organization, HR director, two division directors from finance and planning, and one or two randomly selected professional employees among the finance, planning, and one other service related department chosen at random. At the federal level, we will interview the HR director, finance director, planning director, and three randomly selected service focused departments. In addition to the directors of each of these departments, a sample of 9 professional employees will be chosen in each department at random on the day of the interview.

Sampling deviation

For our school survey, we select only schools that are supervised by the Minsitry or Education or are Private schools. No schools supervised by the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Endowments, Ministry of Higher Education , or Ministry of Social Development are included. This left us with a sampling frame containing 3,330 schools, with 1297 private schools and 2003 schools managed by the Minsitry of Education. The schools must also have at least 3 grade 1 students, 3 grade 4 students, and 3 teachers. We oversampled Southern schools to reach a total of 50 Southern schools for regional comparisons. Additionally, we oversampled Evening schools, for a total of 40 evening schools.

A total of 250 schools were surveyed.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

More information pertaining to each of the three instruments can be found below:

• School Survey: The School Survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. For a team of two enumerators, it takes on average about 4 hours to collect all information in a given school. For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions.

• Policy Survey: The Policy Survey collects information to feed into the policy de jure indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework (as in the SABER approach to policy-data collection that the Bank has used over the past 7 years). The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. In total, there are 52 questions in the survey as of June 2020. The key informant is expected to spend 2-3 days gathering and analyzing the relavant information to answer the survey questions.

• Survey of Public Officials: The Survey of Public Officials collects information about the capacity and orientation of the bureaucracy, as well as political factors affecting education outcomes. This survey is a streamlined and education-focused version of the civil-servant surveys that the Bureaucracy Lab (a joint initiative of the Governance Global Practice and the Development Impact Evaluation unit of the World Bank) has implemented in several countries. The survey includes questions about technical and leadership skills, work environment, stakeholder engagement, impartial decision-making, and attitudes and behaviors. The survey takes 30-45 minutes per public official and is used to interview Ministry of Education officials working at the central, regional, and district levels in each country.

Sampling error estimates

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level.

Activity standards to assist educators to plan and lead field trips. Activity standards are appendixes to the Off-Site Experiential Learning Policy.

Abstract

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level. We also wish to detect differences by urban/rural location. For our school survey, we will employ a two-stage random sample design, where in the first stage a sample of typically around 200 schools, based on local conditions, is drawn, chosen in advance by the Bank staff. In the second stage, a sample of teachers and students will be drawn to answer questions from our survey modules, chosen in the field. A total of 10 teachers will be sampled for absenteeism. Five teachers will be interviewed and given a content knowledge exam. Three 1st grade students will be assessed at random, and a classroom of 4th grade students will be assessed at random. Stratification will be based on the school’s urban/rural classification and based on region. When stratifying by region, we will work with our partners within the country to make sure we include all relevant geographical divisions. For our Survey of Public Officials, we will sample a total of 200 public officials. Roughly 60 officials are typically surveyed at the federal level, while 140 officials will be surveyed at the regional/district level. For selection of officials at the regional and district level, we will employ a cluster sampling strategy, where roughly 10 regional offices (or whatever the secondary administrative unit is called) are chosen at random from among the regions in which schools were sampled. Then among these 10 regions, we also typically select around 10 districts (tertiary administrative level units) from among the districts in which schools were sampled. The result of this sampling approach is that for 10 clusters we will have links from the school to the district office to the regional office to the central office. Within the regions/districts, five or six officials will be sampled, including the head of organization, HR director, two division directors from finance and planning, and one or two randomly selected professional employees among the finance, planning, and one other service related department chosen at random. At the federal level, we will interview the HR director, finance director, planning director, and three randomly selected service focused departments. In addition to the directors of each of these departments, a sample of 9 professional employees will be chosen in each department at random on the day of the interview.

Sampling deviation

In order to visit two schools per day, we clustered at the sector level choosing two schools per cluster. With a sample of 200 schools, this means that we had to allocate 100 PSUs. We combined this clustering with stratification by district and by the urban rural status of the schools. The number of PSUs allocated to each stratum is proportionate to the number of schools in each stratum (i.e. the district X urban/rural status combination).

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

More information pertaining to each of the three instruments can be found below: - School Survey: The School Survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. For a team of two enumerators, it takes on average about 4 hours to collect all information in a given school. For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions.

• Policy Survey: The Policy Survey collects information to feed into the policy de jure indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework (as in the SABER approach to policy-data collection that the Bank has used over the past 7 years). The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. In total, there are 52 questions in the survey as of June 2020. The key informant is expected to spend 2-3 days gathering and analyzing the relavant information to answer the survey questions.

• Survey of Public Officials: The Survey of Public Officials collects information about the capacity and orientation of the bureaucracy, as well as political factors affecting education outcomes. This survey is a streamlined and education-focused version of the civil-servant surveys that the Bureaucracy Lab (a joint initiative of the Governance Global Practice and the Development Impact Evaluation unit of the World Bank) has implemented in several countries. The survey includes questions about technical and leadership skills, work environment, stakeholder engagement, impartial decision-making, and attitudes and behaviors. The survey takes 30-45 minutes per public official and is used to interview Ministry of Education officials working at the central, regional, and district levels in each country.

Cleaning operations

Data quality control was performed in R and Stata Code to calculate all indicators can be found on github here: https://github.com/worldbank/GEPD/blob/master/Countries/Rwanda/2019/School/01_data/03_school_data_cleaner.R

Sampling error estimates

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level.

Rules and regulations made by the Ministry of Education which operationalize the Public School System Act.

The policy intends to change that so that English and Kajin Aelōñ Kein continue as teaching languages in a bilingual arrangement.

This Ministry of Education School Handbook provides valuable information on policies, rules, regulations, and guidelines for students, parents, teachers and staff, and the community. The Handbook also describes the roles and responsibilities of the education stakeholders in the education of our children.

This Information Memorandum (IM) notifies child welfare agencies about the release of updated nonregulatory guidance: Nonregulatory Guidance: Ensuring Educational Stability and Success for Students in Foster Care.

Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

Abstract

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level. We also wish to detect differences by urban/rural location.

For our school survey, we will employ a two-stage random sample design, where in the first stage a sample of typically around 200 schools, based on local conditions, is drawn, chosen in advance by the Bank staff. In the second stage, a sample of teachers and students will be drawn to answer questions from our survey modules, chosen in the field. A total of 10 teachers will be sampled for absenteeism. Five teachers will be interviewed and given a content knowledge exam. Three 1st grade students will be assessed at random, and a classroom of 4th grade students will be assessed at random. Stratification will be based on the school’s urban/rural classification and based on region. When stratifying by region, we will work with our partners within the country to make sure we include all relevant geographical divisions.

For our Survey of Public Officials, we will sample a total of 200 public officials. Roughly 60 officials are typically surveyed at the federal level, while 140 officials will be surveyed at the regional/district level. For selection of officials at the regional and district level, we will employ a cluster sampling strategy, where roughly 10 regional offices (or whatever the secondary administrative unit is called) are chosen at random from among the regions in which schools were sampled. Then among these 10 regions, we also typically select around 10 districts (tertiary administrative level units) from among the districts in which schools werer sampled. The result of this sampling approach is that for 10 clusters we will have links from the school to the district office to the regional office to the central office. Within the regions/districts, five or six officials will be sampled, including the head of organization, HR director, two division directors from finance and planning, and one or two randomly selected professional employees among the finance, planning, and one other service related department chosen at random. At the federal level, we will interview the HR director, finance director, planning director, and three randomly selected service focused departments. In addition to the directors of each of these departments, a sample of 9 professional employees will be chosen in each department at random on the day of the interview.

Sampling deviation

Overall, we draw a sample of 300 public schools from each of the regions of Ethiopia. As a comparison to the total number of schools in Ethiopia, this consistutes an approximately 1% sample. Because of the large size of the country, and because there can be very large distances between Woredas within the same region, we chose a cluster sampling approach. In this approach, 100 Woredas were chosen with probability proportional to 4th grade size. Then within each Woreda two rural and one urban school were chosen with probability proportional to 4th grade size.

Because of conflict in the Tigray region, an initial set of 12 schools that were selected had to be trimmed to 6 schools in Tigray. These six schools were then distributed to other regions in Ethiopia.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

More information pertaining to each of the three instruments can be found below:

• School Survey: The School Survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. For a team of two enumerators, it takes on average about 4 hours to collect all information in a given school. For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions.

• Policy Survey: The Policy Survey collects information to feed into the policy de jure indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework (as in the SABER approach to policy-data collection that the Bank has used over the past 7 years). The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. In total, there are 52 questions in the survey as of June 2020. The key informant is expected to spend 2-3 days gathering and analyzing the relavant information to answer the survey questions.

• Survey of Public Officials: The Survey of Public Officials collects information about the capacity and orientation of the bureaucracy, as well as political factors affecting education outcomes. This survey is a streamlined and education-focused version of the civil-servant surveys that the Bureaucracy Lab (a joint initiative of the Governance Global Practice and the Development Impact Evaluation unit of the World Bank) has implemented in several countries. The survey includes questions about technical and leadership skills, work environment, stakeholder engagement, impartial decision-making, and attitudes and behaviors. The survey takes 30-45 minutes per public official and is used to interview Ministry of Education officials working at the central, regional, and district levels in each country.

Sampling error estimates

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level.

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.

💁‍♀️Please take a moment to carefully read through this description and metadata to better understand the dataset and its nuances before proceeding to the Suggestions and Discussions section.

🧮 Dataset Description

This dataset, titled "Minimum Required School Days/Hours By State 2023," provides a comprehensive overview of the minimum instructional days and hours required by educational policies across the United States, including Puerto Rico. It serves as a valuable resource for educators, policymakers, researchers, and anyone interested in the educational standards and requirements set by different states.

📚 Data Source

The information contained in this dataset has been meticulously sourced from the Education Commissions of the States, specifically focusing on their Instructional Time Policies for the year 2023.

🏫 Grade Selection Rationale

In this dataset, I focus on key educational milestones by including data for grades 1, 6, and 9. These grades were chosen as they generally represent the entry points into the three main levels of the K-12 education system in the United States: elementary school (Grade 1), middle school (Grade 6), and high school (Grade 9). While the structure of grade levels may vary slightly across different districts and states, these grades typically signify the beginning of each educational stage, making them pivotal for analysis.

🏛️ Columns

• State: The name of the state or territory (including Puerto Rico).
• MinimumDays: The minimum number of instructional days required by the state's educational policy.
• MinimumHours: The minimum number of instructional hours required by the state's educational policy.
• AdditionalNote: Any additional notes or exceptions to the standard requirements.
• Citation: The source or citation from which the data was obtained.

🪛 Data Quality and NULL Values

It is important to note that the dataset contains several NULL values. These NULL values indicate that the specific information (e.g., minimum days or hours) is "Not specified in state policy" for the respective state or territory. This absence of data does not indicate an error but rather the variability in how states specify their instructional time policies.

🔍 Scope of Data

Please note that the data presented in this dataset pertains to the minimum required school days and hours as dictated by state policies for the year 2023. It is important to recognize that these figures generally apply to public schools, following state-level educational mandates. Private schools, on the other hand, may not be strictly bound by these minimum requirements and thus could follow different standards based on individual or organizational decisions. This distinction is crucial for users who aim to analyze or interpret the dataset with an understanding of its applicability to different types of educational institutions across the United States, including Puerto Rico.

💁‍♀️ Intended Use

This dataset is intended for educational, research, and analysis purposes only. It aims to provide a clear and accessible reference for understanding the diversity of instructional time requirements across the United States and Puerto Rico.

🛑 Disclosure

The information provided in this dataset is for informational purposes only and should be used responsibly. The creator of this dataset does not assume liability for any inaccuracies in the data or misinterpretation of the information. Users are encouraged to consult the original sources and citations provided for verification and further details.

👏 Acknowledgment

I acknowledge the Education Commissions of the States for their invaluable work in compiling and updating instructional time policies, which served as the primary source for this dataset.

While enrolment in tertiary education has increased dramatically over the past decades, many university-aged students do not enrol, nor do they expect to earn a university degree. While it is important to promote high expectations for further education, it is equally important to ensure that students’ expectations are well-aligned with their actual abilities. Grade Expectations: How Marks and Education Policies Shape Students' Ambitions reveals some of the factors that influence students’ thinking about further education. The report also suggests what teachers and education policy makers can do to ensure that more students have the skills, as well as the motivation, to succeed in higher education. In 2009, students in 21 PISA-participating countries and economies were asked about their expected educational attainment. An analysis of PISA data finds that students who expect to earn a university degree show significantly better performance in math and reading when compared to students who do not expect to earn such a university degree. However, performance is only one of the factors that determine expectations. On average across most countries and economies, girls and socio-economically advantaged students tend to hold more ambitious expectations than boys and disadvantaged students who perform just as well; and students with higher school marks are more likely to expect to earn a university degree – regardless of what those marks really measure.

The workshop provides an overview of the DOE policies related to New York State’s Dignity for All Students Act, with a focus on Chancellor’s Regulations A-832-Student to Student Discrimination, Harassment, Intimidation, and/or Bullying and A-831-Student to Student Sexual Harassment as well as the Staff to Student Discrimination and Sexual Harassment components of Chancellor’s Regulation A-830. Participants will also learn about the protected classifications for students and staff, their reporting responsibilities and under what circumstances off-school premises behavior is covered under Chancellor’s Regulations.

This data collection contains information from the first wave of High School and Beyond (HSB), a longitudinal study of American youth conducted by the National Opinion Research Center on behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Data were collected from 58,270 high school students (28,240 seniors and 30,030 sophomores) and 1,015 secondary schools in the spring of 1980. Many items overlap with the NCES's NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE CLASS OF 1972 (ICPSR 8085). The HSB study's data are contained in eight files. Part 1 (School Data) contains data from questionnaires completed by high school principals about various school attributes and programs. Part 2 (Student Data) contains data from surveys administered to students. Included are questionnaire responses on family and religious background, perceptions of self and others, personal values, extracurricular activities, type of high school program, and educational expectations and aspirations. Also supplied are scores on a battery of cognitive tests including vocabulary, reading, mathematics, science, writing, civics, spatial orientation, and visualization. To gather the data in Part 3 (Parent Data), a subsample of the seniors and sophomores surveyed in HSB was drawn, and questionnaires were administered to one parent of each of 3,367 sophomores and of 3,197 seniors. The questionnaires contain a number of items in common with the student questionnaires, and there are a number of items in common between the parent-of-sophomore and the parent-of-senior questionnaires. This is a revised file from the one originally released in Autumn 1981, and it includes 22 new analytically constructed variables imputed by NCES from the original survey data gathered from parents. The new data are concerned primarily with the areas of family income, liabilities, and assets. Other data in the file concentrate on financing of post-secondary education, including numerous parent opinions and projections concerning the educational future of the student, anticipated financial aid, student's plans after high school, expected ages for student's marriage and childbearing, estimated costs of post-secondary education, and government financial aid policies. Also supplied are data on family size, value of property and other assets, home financing, family income and debts, and the age, sex, marital, and employment status of parents, plus current income and expenses for the student. Part 4 (Language Data) provides information on each student who reported some non-English language experience, with data on past and current exposure to and use of languages. In Parts 5-6, there are responses from 14,103 teachers about 18,291 senior and sophomore students from 616 schools. Students were evaluated by an average of four different teachers who had the opportunity to express knowledge or opinions of HSB students whom they had taught during the 1979-1980 school year. Part 5 (Teacher Comment Data: Seniors) contains 67,053 records, and Part 6 (Teacher Comment Data: Sophomores) contains 76,560 records. Questions were asked regarding the teacher's opinions of their student's likelihood of attending college, popularity, and physical or emotional handicaps affecting school work. The sophomore file also contains questions on teacher characteristics, e.g., sex, ethnic origin, subjects taught, and time devoted to maintaining order. The data in Part 7 (Twins and Siblings Data) are from students in the HSB sample identified as twins, triplets, or other siblings. Of the 1,348 families included, 524 had twins or triplets only, 810 contained non-twin siblings only, and the remaining 14 contained both types of siblings. Finally, Part 8 (Friends Data) contained the first-, second-, and third-choice friends listed by each of the students in Part 2, along with identifying information allowing links between friendship pairs.

Superseded / obsolete activity standards that assisted educators to plan and lead field trips. Activity standards are appendixes to the Off-Site Experiential Learning Policy. The policy and standards below are no longer in effect. See the current Off-Site Experiential Learning Policy.

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.

Abstract

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level. We also wish to detect differences by urban/rural location. For our school survey, we will employ a two-stage random sample design, where in the first stage a sample of typically around 200 schools, based on local conditions, is drawn, chosen in advance by the Bank staff. In the second stage, a sample of teachers and students will be drawn to answer questions from our survey modules, chosen in the field. A total of 10 teachers will be sampled for absenteeism. Five teachers will be interviewed and given a content knowledge exam. Three 1st grade students will be assessed at random, and a classroom of 4th grade students will be assessed at random. Stratification will be based on the school’s urban/rural classification and based on region. When stratifying by region, we will work with our partners within the country to make sure we include all relevant geographical divisions. For our Survey of Public Officials, we will sample a total of 200 public officials. Roughly 60 officials are typically surveyed at the federal level, while 140 officials will be surveyed at the regional/district level. For selection of officials at the regional and district level, we will employ a cluster sampling strategy, where roughly 10 regional offices (or whatever the secondary administrative unit is called) are chosen at random from among the regions in which schools were sampled. Then among these 10 regions, we also typically select around 10 districts (tertiary administrative level units) from among the districts in which schools werer sampled. The result of this sampling approach is that for 10 clusters we will have links from the school to the district office to the regional office to the central office. Within the regions/districts, five or six officials will be sampled, including the head of organization, HR director, two division directors from finance and planning, and one or two randomly selected professional employees among the finance, planning, and one other service related department chosen at random. At the federal level, we will interview the HR director, finance director, planning director, and three randomly selected service focused departments. In addition to the directors of each of these departments, a sample of 9 professional employees will be chosen in each department at random on the day of the interview.

Sampling deviation

The sample for the Global Education Policy Dashboard in SLE was based in part on a previous sample of 260 schools which were part of an early EGRA study. Details from the sampling for that study are quoted below. An additional booster sample of 40 schools was chosen to be representative of smaller schools of less than 30 learners.

EGRA Details:

"The sampling frame began with the 2019 Annual School Census (ASC) list of primary schools as provided by UNICEF/MBSSE where the sample of 260 schools for this study were obtained from an initial list of 7,154 primary schools. Only schools that meet a pre-defined selection criteria were eligible for sampling.

To achieve the recommended sample size of 10 learners per grade, schools that had an enrolment of at least 30 learners in Grade 2 in 2019 were considered. To achieve a high level of confidence in the findings and generate enough data for analysis, the selection criteria only considered schools that: • had an enrolment of at least 30 learners in grade 1; and • had an active grade 4 in 2019 (enrolment not zero)

The sample was taken from a population of 4,597 primary schools that met the eligibility criteria above, representing 64.3% of all the 7,154 primary schools in Sierra Leone (as per the 2019 school census). Schools with higher numbers of learners were purposefully selected to ensure the sample size could be met in each site.

As a result, a sample of 260 schools were drawn using proportional to size allocation with simple random sampling without replacement in each stratum. In the population, there were 16 districts and five school ownership categories (community, government, mission/religious, private and others). A total of 63 strata were made by forming combinations of the 16 districts and school ownership categories. In each stratum, a sample size was computed proportional to the total population and samples were drawn randomly without replacement. Drawing from other EGRA/EGMA studies conducted by Montrose in the past, a backup sample of up to 78 schools (30% of the sample population) with which enumerator teams can replace sample schools was also be drawn.

In the distribution of sampled schools by ownership, majority of the sampled schools are owned by mission/religious group (62.7%, n=163) followed by the government owned schools at 18.5% (n=48). Additionally, in school distribution by district, majority of the sampled schools (54%) were found in Bo, Kambia, Kenema, Kono, Port Loko and Kailahun districts. Refer to annex 9. for details on the population and sample distribution by district."

Because of the restriction that at least 30 learners were available in Grade 2, we chose to add an additional 40 schools to the sample from among smaller schools, with between 3 and 30 grade 2 students. The objective of this supplement was to make the sample more nationally representative, as the restriction reduced the sampling frame for the EGRA/EGMA sample by over 1,500 schools from 7,154 to 4,597.

The 40 schools were chosen in a manner consistent with the original set of EGRA/EGMA schools. The 16 districts formed the strata. In each stratum, the number of schools selected were proportional to the total population of the stratum, and within stratum schools were chosen with probability proportional to size.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

More information pertaining to each of the three instruments can be found below: - School Survey: The School Survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. For a team of two enumerators, it takes on average about 4 hours to collect all information in a given school. For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions.

• Policy Survey: The Policy Survey collects information to feed into the policy de jure indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework (as in the SABER approach to policy-data collection that the Bank has used over the past 7 years). The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. In total, there are 52 questions in the survey as of June 2020. The key informant is expected to spend 2-3 days gathering and analyzing the relavant information to answer the survey

This data provides information on the status of each department at higher education institutions nationwide, including universities, graduate schools, and technical colleges. It includes information such as establishment type (public/private), school type, main/branch campus, college name, department/major name, day/night type, department characteristics and status, large/medium/small department classification, length of study, and degree program name. You can also check the status of department openings/closures and the composition of majors by department by year. This data can be utilized for various educational administration and research purposes, such as establishing higher education policies, analyzing major diversification, identifying trends in the expansion of academic fields by department, evaluating university competitiveness, investigating employment linkages by department, and analyzing educational resources by region.

This dataset includes the attendance rate for public school students PK-12 by school during the 2022-2023 school year.

When no attendance data is displayed in a cell, data have been suppressed to safeguard student confidentiality, or to ensure that statistics based on a very small sample size are not interpreted as equally representative as those based on a sufficiently larger sample size. For more information on CSDE data suppression policies, please visit http://edsight.ct.gov/relatedreports/BDCRE%20Data%20Suppression%20Rules.pdf.