The National Household Education Survey (NHES) reports on the condition of education in the United States by collecting data at the household level rather than using a traditional, school-based data collection system. The surveys attempt to address many current issues in education, such as preprimary education, school safety and discipline, adult education, and activities related to citizenship. This survey included three topical survey components: a Parent Interview, a Youth Interview, and an Adult Education Interview. The Parent Interview (Part 1, Parent Survey Data) collected data on a variety of topics, including early childhood program participation, types and frequency of family involvement in children's schooling, school practices to involve and support families, learning activities with children outside of school, and plans for their children's postsecondary education. The Adult Education Interview (Part 2, Adult Education Survey Data) gathered data on type of adult education program enrolled in, employer support, and degree sought for six types of adult educational activities, including English as a second language, adult basic education, credential programs, apprenticeships, work-related courses, and personal development courses. The Youth Interview (Part 3, Youth Survey Data) elicited information from youths in the 6th through 12th grades whose parents had completed a Parent Interview. Respondents were asked about school and family environments, civic involvement and community service, and plans for postsecondary education.

The Annual Arts Education survey collects information on student participation in and access to arts education at NYCDOE schools.

Please note the following arts-related data are now collected from other sources: The number of certified art teachers and non-certified teachers teaching the arts is collected form the HR and BEDS survey The arts instructional hours provided to elementary students are collected from the Student Transcript and Academic Recording System (STARS) The middle and high school participation in the arts data and the NYSED requirement data are collected form STARS and the HS arts sequence data are also collected form STARS

The Elementary School Arts Education Survey, 2009 (FRSS 100), is a study that is part of the Quick Response Information System. FRSS 100 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/) is a sample survey that provides national estimates on student access to arts education and resources available for such instruction in public elementary schools during fall 2009. The study was conducted using mailed questionnaires that could be completed via web or by mail. Follow-up telephone interviews were also conducted. Principals of elementary schools were sampled. The study's response rate was 85 percent. Key statistics produced from FRSS 100 are availability and characteristics of music, visual arts, dance, and drama/theatre instruction; the type of space used for arts instruction; the availability of curriculum guides for arts teachers to follow; and whether those teaching the subject are arts specialists.

The National Household Education Survey, 2005 After-School Programs and Activities (ASPA-NHES:2005), is a study that is part of the National Household Education Survey (NHES) program. ASPA-NHES:2005 (https://nces.ed.gov/nhes/) is a cross-sectional survey that collects data directly from households on educational issues. This study was conducted using address based sample, self-administered questionnaires of households. Households in 2005 were sampled. The study response rate was 67.5 percent. Key statistics produced from ASPA-NHES:2005 are participation in after-school programs and activities.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Arts Education Surveys of Elementary School Teachers provide national estimates on arts education and arts instructors in public elementary schools during the 2009-10 school year. This data collection contains three surveys that provide information about music specialists, visual arts specialists, and self-contained classroom teachers. These three surveys are part of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to these elementary teacher surveys, the set includes a survey of elementary school principals, a survey of secondary school principals, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select teachers and arts specialists (music and visual arts) for the Arts Education Surveys of Elementary School Teachers. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through August 2010. Altogether, 1,148 eligible music specialists, 918 eligible visual arts specialists, and 734 eligible self-contained classroom teachers completed the surveys by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The elementary teacher surveys collected data on the availability of curriculum-based arts education activities outside of regular school hours, teaching load of music and visual arts specialists in elementary schools, teacher participation in various professional development activities, the ways in which self-contained classroom teachers teach arts education as part of their instructional program, and teachers' use of formal methods of assessment of students' achievement in the arts. Furthermore, teachers were also asked to provide administrative information such as school level, school enrollment size, school community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Reported data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size permits limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools, 2009 survey provides national estimates on the availability and use of educational technology among teachers in public elementary and secondary schools during 2009. This is one of a set of three surveys (at the district, school, and teacher levels) that collected data on a range of educational technology resources. A stratified multistage sample design was used to select teachers for this study. Data collection was conducted September 2008 through July 2009, and 3,159 eligible teachers completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The survey asked respondents to report information on the use of computers and Internet access in the classroom; availability and use of computing devices, software, and school or district networks (including remote access) by teachers; students' use of educational technology; teachers' preparation to use educational technology for instruction; and technology-related professional development activities. Respondents reported quantities for the following: computers located in the classroom every day, computers that can be brought into the classroom, and computers with Internet access. Data on the availability and frequency of using computers and other technology devices during instructional time were also collected. Respondents reported on students' use of educational technology resources during classes and teachers' use of modes of technology to communicate with parents and students. Additional survey topics included teacher training and preparation to effectively use educational technology for instruction, and teachers' opinions related to statements about their participation in professional development for educational technology. Respondents were also asked for administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, main teaching assignment, and years of experience.

2008 NYC General Education School Survey

The National Household Education Survey Program, 2012 Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey (PFI-NHES:2012), is a study that is part of the National Household Education Survey (NHES) program. PFI-NHES:2012 (https://nces.ed.gov/nhes/) is a cross-sectional survey that collects data directly from households on educational issues. This study was conducted using address based sample, self-administered questionnaires of households. Households in 2012 were sampled. Key statistics produced from PFI-NHES:2012 are early childhood care and education, children's readiness for school, parent perceptions of school safety and discipline, before- and after-school activities of school-age children, participation in adult and continuing education, parent involvement in education, school choice, homeschooling, and civic involvement.

NYC Department of Education , 2012 NYC School Survey. Every year, all parents, all teachers, and students in grades 6 - 12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey ranks among the largest surveys of any kind ever conducted nationally. Survey results provide insight into a school's learning environment and contribute a measure of diversification that goes beyond test scores on the Progress Report. NYC School Survey results contribute 10% - 15% of a school's Progress Report grade (the exact contribution to the Progress Report is dependant on school type). Survey questions assess the community's opinions on academic expectations, communication, engagement, and safety and respect. School leaders can use survey results to better understand their own school's strengths and target areas for improvement

The National Household Education Survey, 2007 School Readiness (SR-NHES:2007), is a study that is part of the National Household Education Survey (NHES) program. SR-NHES:2007 (https://nces.ed.gov/nhes/) is a cross-sectional survey that collects data directly from households on educational issues. This study was conducted using address based sample, self-administered questionnaires of households. Households in 2007 were sampled. The study's response rate was 53.2 percent. Key statistics produced from SR-NHES:2007 are children's readiness for school.

Every year, all parents, all teachers, and students in grades 6 - 12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey ranks among the largest surveys of any kind ever conducted nationally. Survey results provide insight into a school's learning environment and contribute a measure of diversification that goes beyond test scores on the Progress Report. NYC School Survey results contribute 10% - 15% of a school's Progress Report grade (the exact contribution to the Progress Report is dependant on school type). Survey questions assess the community's opinions on academic expectations, communication, engagement, and safety and respect. School leaders can use survey results to better understand their own school's strengths and target areas for improvement. The NYC School Survey helps school leaders understand what key members of the school community say about the learning environment at each school. The information captured by the survey is designed to support a dialogue among all members of the school community about how to make the school a better place to learn. New York City parents, students, and teachers reached new all-time participation highs on the 2011 School Survey. 960,191 surveys were submitted.

2017 NYC School Survey Student data for all schools; To understand the perceptions of families, students, and teachers regarding their school. School leaders use feedback from the survey to reflect and make improvements to schools and programs. Also, results from the survey used to help measure school quality. Each year, all parents, teachers, and students in grades 6-12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey is aligned to the DOE's Framework for Great Schools. It is designed to collect important information about each school's ability to support student success.

Arts Education Surveys of Secondary School Teachers, 2009 (FRSS 103), is a study that is part of the Quick Response Information System. FRSS 103 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/) is a sample survey that provides national estimates on arts education and arts instructors in public secondary schools during the 2009-10 school year. The study was conducted using mailed questionnaires that could be completed via web or by mail. Follow-up telephone interviews were also conducted. Teachers were sampled. The study's response rate was 81.8 percent. Key statistics produced from FRSS 103 were data on the teaching load of music and visual arts specialists in secondary schools; teacher participation in various professional development activities and the perceived impact of such participation on teaching; and teachers' use of formal methods of assessment of students' progress and achievement in the arts.

Abstract

The Education Quality Improvement Programme in Tanzania (EQUIP-T) is a large, four-year Department for International Development (DFID) funded programme. It targets some of the most educationally disadvantaged regions in Tanzania to increase the quality of primary education and improve pupil learning outcomes, in particular for girls. EQUIP-T covers seven regions in Tanzania and has five components: 1) enhanced professional capacity and performance of teachers; 2) enhanced school leadership and management skills; 3) strengthened systems that support the district and regional management of education; 4) strengthened community participation and demand for accountability; and 5) strengthened learning and dissemination of results. Together, changes in these five outputs are intended to reduce constraints on pupil learning and thereby contribute to better-quality education (outcome) and ultimately improved pupil learning (impact).

The independent impact evaluation (IE) of EQUIP-T conducted by Oxford Policy Management Ltd (OPM) is a four-year study funded by DFID. It covers five of the seven programme regions (the two regions that will join EQUIP-T in a later phase are not included) and the first four EQUIP-T components (see above). The IE uses a mixed methods approach where qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated. The baseline approach consists of three main parts to allow the IE to: 1) capture the situation prior to the start of EQUIP-T so that changes can be measured during the follow-up data collection rounds; impact attributable to the programme assessed and mechanisms for programme impact explored; 2) develop an expanded programme theory of change to help inform possible programme adjustments; and 3) provide an assessment of the education situation in some of the most educationally disadvantaged regions in Tanzania to the Government and other education stakeholders.

This approach includes:

• Quantitative survey of 100 government primary schools in 17 programme treatment districts and 100 schools in eight control districts in 2014, 2016 and 2018 covering:
• Standard three pupils
• Teachers who teach standards 1-3 Kiswahili and/or mathematics;
• Teachers who teach standards 4-7 mathematics;
• Head teachers; and

• Standard two lesson observations in Kiswahili and mathematics.

• Qualitative fieldwork in nine research sites that overlap with a sub-set of the quantitative survey schools, in 2014, 2016 and 2018, consisting of key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with head teachers, teachers, pupils, parents, school committee (SC) members, region, district and ward education officials and EQUIP-T programme staff; and

• A mapping of causal mechanisms, and assessment of the strength of assumptions underpinning the programme theory of change using qualitative and quantitative IE baseline data as well as national and international evidence.

The data and documentation contained in the World Bank Microdata Catalog are those from the EQUIP-T IE quantitative baseline survey conducted in 2014. For information on the qualitative research findings see OPM. 2015b. EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume II: Methods and Technical Annexes.

Geographic coverage

The survey is representative of the 17 EQUIP-T programme treatment districts. The survey is NOT representative of the eight control districts. For more details see the section on Representativeness and OPM. 2015. EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation: Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume I: Results and Discussion and OPM. 2015. EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume II: Methods and Technical Annexes.

The 17 treatment districts are:

-Dodoma Region: Bahi DC, Chamwino DC, Kongwa DC, Mpwapwa DC -Kigoma Region: Kakonko DC, Kibondo DC -Shinyanga Region: Kishapu DC, Shinyanga DC -Simiyu Region: Bariadi DC, Bariadi TC, Itilima DC, Maswa DC, Meatu DC -Tabora Region: Igunga DC, Nzega DC, Sikonge DC, Uyui DC

The 8 control districts are:

-Arusha Region: Ngorongoro DC -Mwanza Region: Misungwi DC -Pwani Region: Rufiji DC
-Rukwa Region: Nkasi DC -Ruvuma Region: Tunduru DC -Singida Region: Ikungi DC, Singida DC -Tanga Region: Kilindi DC

Analysis unit

• School
• Teacher
• Pupil
• Lesson (not sampled)

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Because the EQUIP-T regions and districts were purposively selected (see OPM. 2015. EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation: Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume I: Results and Discussion.), the IE sampling strategy used propensity score matching (PSM) to: (i) match eligible control districts to the pre-selected and eligible EQUIP-T districts (see below), and (ii) match schools from the control districts to a sample of randomly sampled treatment schools in the treatment districts. The same schools will be surveyed for each round of the IE (panel of schools) and standard 3 pupils will be interviewed at each round of the survey (no pupil panel).

Identifying districts eligible for matching

Eligible control and treatment districts were those not participating in any other education programme or project that may confound the measurement of EQUIP-T impact. To generate the list of eligible control and treatment districts, all districts that are contaminated because of other education programmes or projects or may be affected by programme spill-over were excluded as follows:

-All districts located in Lindi and Mara regions as these are part of the EQUIP-T programme, but the impact evaluation does not cover these two regions; -Districts that will receive partial EQUIP-T programme treatment or will be subject to potential EQUIP-T programme spill-overs; -Districts that are receiving other education programmes/projects that aim to influence the same outcomes as the EQUIP-T programme and would confound measurement of EQUIP-T impact; -Districts that were part of pre-test 1 (two districts); and -Districts that were part of pre-test 2 (one district).

Sampling frame

To be able to select an appropriate sample of pupils and teachers within schools and districts, the sampling frame consisted of information at three levels:

-District level; -School level; and -Within school level.

The sampling frame data at the district and school levels was compiled from the following sources: the 2002 and 2012 Tanzania Population Censuses, Education Management Information System (EMIS) data from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT) and the Prime Minister's Office for Regional and Local Government (PMO-RALG), and the UWEZO 2011 student learning assessment survey. For within school level sampling, the frames were constructed upon arrival at the selected schools and was used to sample pupils and teachers on the day of the school visit.

Sampling stages

Stage 1: Selection of control districts

Because the treatment districts were known, the first step was to find sufficiently similar control districts that could serve as the counterfactual. PSM was used to match eligible control districts to the pre-selected, eligible treatment districts using the following matching variables: Population density, proportion of male headed households, household size, number of children per household, proportion of households that speak an ethnic language at home, and district level averages for household assets, infrastructure, education spending, parental education, school remoteness, pupil learning levels and pupil drop out.

Stage 2: Selection of treatment schools

In the second stage, schools in the treatment districts were selected using stratified systematic random sampling. The schools were selected using a probability proportional to size approach, where the measure of school size was the standard two enrolment of pupils. This means that schools with more pupils had a higher probability of being selected into the sample. To obtain a representative sample of programme treatment schools, the sample was implicitly stratified along four dimensions:

-Districts; -PSLE scores for Kiswahili; -PSLE scores for mathematics; and -Total number of teachers per school.

Stage 3: Selection of control schools

As in stage one, a non-random PSM approach was used to match eligible control schools to the sample of treatment schools. The matching variables were similar to the ones used as stratification criteria: Standard two enrolment, PSLE scores for Kiswahili and mathematics, and the total number of teachers per school.

The midline and endline surveys will be conducted for the same schools as the baseline survey (a panel of schools). However, the IE will not have a panel of pupils as a pupil only attends standard three once (unless repeating). Thus, the IE will have a repeated cross-section of pupils in a panel of schools.

Stage 4: Selection of pupils and teachers within

School District Finance Survey, 2006-07 (F-33 2006-07), is a study that is part of the Common Core of Data (CCD) program; program data available since 1990 at . F-33 2006-07 (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33ageninfo.asp) is a universe survey that is designed to provide finance data for all local education agencies (LEAs) that provides free public elementary and secondary education in the United States. The data file for F-33 2006-07 contains 16,394 records representing the public elementary and secondary education agencies in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. Key statistics produced from F-33 2006-07 are expenditures by object and function, indebtedness, and revenues by source. The F-33 is collaboration by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Census Bureau. Census is the primary collection agent. Census refers to the collection as the Annual Survey of Local Government Finances: School Systems and releases its own version of the data file and publication based on that file. The NCES and Census files differ in their inclusion of independent charter school districts, the classification of some revenue items, and the inclusion of some expenditure items.

NYC Department of Education 2011 District 75 School Surveys. Every year, all parents, all teachers, and students in grades 6 - 12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey ranks among the largest surveys of any kind ever conducted nationally. Survey results provide insight into a school's learning environment and contribute a measure of diversification that goes beyond test scores on the Progress Report. NYC School Survey results contribute 10% - 15% of a school's Progress Report grade (the exact contribution to the Progress Report is dependant on school type). Survey questions assess the community's opinions on academic expectations, communication, engagement, and safety and respect. School leaders can use survey results to better understand their own school's strengths and target areas for improvement

The Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project (ESESP) is a national pilot survey that enables Statistics Canada to provide information on enrolments, graduates, educators and finance of Canadian elementary-secondary public educational institutions. This information is used mainly to meet policy and planning needs in the field of elementary-secondary education. ESESP annually collects aggregate data from each jurisdiction. Specifically, the information on enrolments pertains to the following four programs: regular, minority and second languages, Aboriginal language and special needs education. The information on regular programs is collected by type of programs (regular, upgrading and professional), education sector (youth or adult), grade and sex. The one on minority and second language programs is collected by type program (immersion, as language of instruction, as a subject taught) and by grade. Information on Aboriginal language programs is requested by type of Aboriginal language (immersion, as language of instruction, as a subject taught) and by grade. Finally, data on special needs education are collected by type of disability (sensory, physical and intellectual disabilities -- low incidence disabilities, learning disabilities and behavioural disabilities -- high incidence disabilities, to compensate for the socio-economic status (SES) or other disadvantages), type of class (regular, special) and by sex. The survey also collects data on secondary school graduates by type of program (regular, upgrading and professional), sector (youth and adult), age and sex. Graduation counts rates can be produced from this data. Information pertaining to full-time and part-time educators by age group and sex is also collected. Finally, ESESP also gathers expenditures data pertaining to level of government (school board and other government) and type of expenditures. This data is collected to determine how much is spent in relative detail by school boards and by provincial/territorial total. It also collects expenditures on special needs education programs. The information on elementary-secondary education statistics is used by provincial and territorial departments or ministries of education, national and provincial teachers' and students' associations, school boards, journalists and researchers, as well as international bodies such as OECD and UNESCO. ESESP was first introduced by Statistics Canada in 2003. The goal of this pilot project is to replace the following surveys as the official collection tools for elementary-secondary enrolments, graduates, educators and finance data: Elementary-Secondary School Enrolment Survey (ESSE -- Survey #3128), Minority and Second Language Education -- Elementary and Secondary Levels Survey (Survey #3129), Secondary School Graduates Survey (SSGS -- Survey #5082), Elementary-Secondary Education Staff Survey (ESESS -- Survey #3127) The ESESP has been replaced by the Elementary-Secondary Education Survey (ESES). Access data here

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 United States public schools. Data from this collection can be used to examine the relationship between school characteristics and violent and serious violent crimes in primary schools, middle schools, high schools, and combined schools. In addition, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what crime prevention programs, practices, and policies are used by schools. SSOCS has been conducted in school years 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. A fourth collection is planned for school year 2007-2008. SSOCS:2006 was conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Data collection began on March 17, 2006, when questionnaire packets were mailed to schools, and continued through May 31, 2006. A total of 2,724 public schools submitted usable questionnaires: 715 primary schools, 948 middle schools, 924 high schools, and 137 combined schools.

Every year, all parents, all teachers, and students in grades 6 - 12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey ranks among the largest surveys of any kind ever conducted nationally. Survey results provide insight into a school's learning environment and contribute a measure of diversification that goes beyond test scores on the Progress Report. NYC School Survey results contribute 10% - 15% of a school's Progress Report grade (the exact contribution to the Progress Report is dependant on school type). Survey questions assess the community's opinions on academic expectations, communication, engagement, and safety and respect. School leaders can use survey results to better understand their own school's strengths and target areas for improvement. The NYC School Survey helps school leaders understand what key members of the school community say about the learning environment at each school. The information captured by the survey is designed to support a dialogue among all members of the school community about how to make the school a better place to learn.

Abstract

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

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

Madagascar Service Delivery Indicators Education Survey was implemented from April 2016 (for enumerator training and pre-testing of the instruments) to May and June 2016 (for fieldwork and data collection) by CAETIC Development, a strong local think-tank and survey firm. The sampling strategy was done by INSTAT the national institute for statistics. Information was collected from 473 primary schools, 2,130 teachers (for skills assessment), 2,475 teachers (for absence rate), and 3,960 pupils across Madagascar. The survey also collected basic information on all the 3,049 teachers or staff that teach in the 473 primary schools visited or are non-teaching directors.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A two-stage sampling method was adopted. First, in each stratum schools were chosen within the selected councils. Once at a selected school, the enumerator selected teachers and pupils depending on the structure of the classrooms.

The schools were chosen using probability proportional to size (PPS), where size was the number of standard two pupils as provided by the 2014 EMIS database. As for the selection of the cluster, the use of PPS implied that each standard four pupil within a stratum had an equal probability for her school to be selected.

Finally, within each school, up to 10 standard four pupils and 10 teachers were selected. Pupils were randomly selected among the grade-four pupil body, whereas for teachers, there were two different procedures for measuring absence rate and assessing knowledge. For absence rate, 10 teachers were randomly selected from the teachers’ roster and the whereabouts of those teachers was ascertained in a return surprise visit. For the knowledge assessment, however, all teachers who were currently teaching in primary four or taught primary three the previous school year were included in the sample. Then a random number of teachers in upper grades were included to top up the sample. These procedures implied that pupils across strata, as well as teachers across strata and within a school (for the knowledge assessment) did not all have the same probability of selection. It was, therefore, warranted to compute weights for reporting the survey results.

The sampling strategy for the SDI in Madagascar was done by INSTAT the national statistics office.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The SDI Education Survey Questionnaire consists of six modules:

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

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

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

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

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

Module 5: Pupil Assessment - A test of pupils to have a measure of pupil learning outcomes in mathematics and language in grade four.

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

Cleaning operations

Data quality control was performed in Stata.