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?

Colleges and Universities This feature layer, utilizing data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), displays colleges and universities in the U.S. and its territories. NCES uses the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) as the "primary source for information on U.S. colleges, universities, and technical and vocational institutions." According to NCES, this layer "contains directory information for every institution in the 2023-24 IPEDS universe. Includes name, address, city, state, zip code and various URL links to the institution"s home page, admissions, financial aid offices and the net price calculator. Identifies institutions as currently active, and institutions that participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs for which IPEDS is mandatory." University of the District of ColumbiaData currency: 2023Data source: IPEDS Complete Data FilesData modification: Removed fields with coded values and replaced with descriptionsFor more information: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data SystemSupport documentation: Data DictionaryFor feedback, please contact: ArcGIScomNationalMaps@esri.com U.S. Department of Education (ED) Per ED, The mission of the Department of Education (ED) is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages.

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.

EdSight is an education data portal that integrates information from over 30 different sources – some reported by districts and others from external sources. The portal can be accessed here: http://edsight.ct.gov/. Information is available on key performance measures that make up the Next Generation Accountability System, as well as dozens of other topics, including school finance, special education, staffing levels and school enrollment.

This dataset contains data from the National Center for Education Statistics' Academic Library Survey, which was gathered every two years from 1996 - 2014, and annually in IPEDS starting in 2014 (this dataset has continued to only merge data every two years, following the original schedule). This data was merged, transformed, and used for research by Starr Hoffman and Samantha Godbey.This data was merged using R; R scripts for this merge can be made available upon request. Some variables changed names or definitions during this time; a view of these variables over time is provided in the related Figshare Project. Carnegie Classification changed several times during this period; all Carnegie classifications were crosswalked to the 2000 classification version; that information is also provided in the related Figshare Project. This data was used for research published in several articles, conference papers, and posters starting in 2018 (some of this research used an older version of the dataset which was deposited in the University of Nevada, Las Vegas's repository).SourcesAll data sources were downloaded from the National Center for Education Statistics website https://nces.ed.gov/. Individual datasets and years accessed are listed below.[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) Public Use Data File, Library Statistics Program, (2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/aca_data.asp[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institutional Characteristics component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Enrollment component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Human Resources component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Employees Assigned by Position component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2004, 2002), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Staff component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (1999, 1997, 1995), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7

This table contains data on the percent of population age 25 and up with a four-year college degree or higher for California, its regions, counties, county subdivisions, cities, towns, and census tracts. Greater educational attainment has been associated with health-promoting behaviors including consumption of fruits and vegetables and other aspects of healthy eating, engaging in regular physical activity, and refraining from excessive consumption of alcohol and from smoking. Completion of formal education (e.g., high school) is a key pathway to employment and access to healthier and higher paying jobs that can provide food, housing, transportation, health insurance, and other basic necessities for a healthy life. Education is linked with social and psychological factors, including sense of control, social standing and social support. These factors can improve health through reducing stress, influencing health-related behaviors and providing practical and emotional support. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Data and Resources section. The educational attainment table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project (HCI) of the Office of Health Equity. The goal of HCI is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The creation of healthy social, economic, and physical environments that promote healthy behaviors and healthy outcomes requires coordination and collaboration across multiple sectors, including transportation, housing, education, agriculture and others. Statistical metrics, or indicators, are needed to help local, regional, and state public health and partner agencies assess community environments and plan for healthy communities that optimize public health. More information on HCI can be found here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Accessible%202%20CDPH_Healthy_Community_Indicators1pager5-16-12.pdf The format of the educational attainment table is based on the standardized data format for all HCI indicators. As a result, this data table contains certain variables used in the HCI project (e.g., indicator ID, and indicator definition). Some of these variables may contain the same value for all observations.

United States US: Government Expenditure on Education: Total: % of Government Expenditure data was reported at 13.452 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 13.277 % for 2013. United States US: Government Expenditure on Education: Total: % of Government Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 13.277 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2014, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.452 % in 2014 and a record low of 12.933 % in 2011. United States US: Government Expenditure on Education: Total: % of Government Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Education Statistics. General government expenditure on education (current, capital, and transfers) is expressed as a percentage of total general government expenditure on all sectors (including health, education, social services, etc.). It includes expenditure funded by transfers from international sources to government. General government usually refers to local, regional and central governments.; ; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics.; Median;

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is the official and trusted source of internationally comparable data on education, science, culture and communication. As the official statistical agency of UNESCO, and the custodian agency for Sustainable Development Goal 4 on Education (SDG 4), the UIS produces a wide range of data to inform the policies and investments needed to transform lives and propel the world towards its development goals.

This collection includes only a subset of indicators from the source dataset.

The Learning Resources Database is a catalog of interactive tutorials, videos, online classes, finding aids, and other instructional resources on National Library of Medicine (NLM) products and services. Resources may be available for immediate use via a browser or downloadable for use in course management systems

Dataset Description

It contains 520 rows and 13 variables as listed below - - Resource ID : Alphanumeric identifier - Resource Name : Title of the resource - Resource URL : Link of the resource - Description : Brief explanation on the reource - Archived : Flagged as False for all data points - Format : Format of the resource ex. HTML, PDF, MP4 video , MS Word, Powerpoint etc. - Type : Type of the resource ex Webinar, document, tutorial, slides etc. - Runtime : Runtime of the resource - Subject Areas : Topic covered in reource - Authoring Organization : Name of the Authoring Organization - Intended Audiences : Profile of the intended audience - Record Modified : Timestamp info on record last modification - Resource Revised : Timestamp info on resource last modified

Open Science in (Higher) Education – data of the February 2017 survey

This data set contains:

Full raw (anonymised) data set (completed responses) of Open Science in (Higher) Education February 2017 survey. Data are in xlsx and sav format.

Survey questionnaires with variables and settings (German original and English translation) in pdf. The English questionnaire was not used in the February 2017 survey, but only serves as translation.

Readme file (txt)

Survey structure

The survey includes 24 questions and its structure can be separated in five major themes: material used in courses (5), OER awareness, usage and development (6), collaborative tools used in courses (2), assessment and participation options (5), demographics (4). The last two questions include an open text questions about general issues on the topics and singular open education experiences, and a request on forwarding the respondent's e-mail address for further questionings. The online survey was created with Limesurvey[1]. Several questions include filters, i.e. these questions were only shown if a participants did choose a specific answer beforehand ([n/a] in Excel file, [.] In SPSS).

Demographic questions

Demographic questions asked about the current position, the discipline, birth year and gender. The classification of research disciplines was adapted to general disciplines at German higher education institutions. As we wanted to have a broad classification, we summarised several disciplines and came up with the following list, including the option "other" for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

Natural Sciences

Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences

Economics

Law

Medicine

Computer Sciences, Engineering, Technics

Other

The current job position classification was also chosen according to common positions in Germany, including positions with a teaching responsibility at higher education institutions. Here, we also included the option "other" for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

Professor

Special education teacher

Academic/scientific assistant or research fellow (research and teaching)

Academic staff (teaching)

Student assistant

Other

We chose to have a free text (numerical) for asking about a respondent's year of birth because we did not want to pre-classify respondents' age intervals. It leaves us options to have different analysis on answers and possible correlations to the respondents' age. Asking about the country was left out as the survey was designed for academics in Germany.

Remark on OER question

Data from earlier surveys revealed that academics suffer confusion about the proper definition of OER[2]. Some seem to understand OER as free resources, or only refer to open source software (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 11). Allen and Seaman (2016) decided to give a broad explanation of OER, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim "aware". Thus, there is a danger of having a bias when giving an explanation. We decided not to give an explanation, but keep this question simple. We assume that either someone knows about OER or not. If they had not heard of the term before, they do not probably use OER (at least not consciously) or create them.

Data collection

The target group of the survey was academics at German institutions of higher education, mainly universities and universities of applied sciences. To reach them we sent the survey to diverse institutional-intern and extern mailing lists and via personal contacts. Included lists were discipline-based lists, lists deriving from higher education and higher education didactic communities as well as lists from open science and OER communities. Additionally, personal e-mails were sent to presidents and contact persons from those communities, and Twitter was used to spread the survey.

The survey was online from Feb 6th to March 3rd 2017, e-mails were mainly sent at the beginning and around mid-term.

Data clearance

We got 360 responses, whereof Limesurvey counted 208 completes and 152 incompletes. Two responses were marked as incomplete, but after checking them turned out to be complete, and we added them to the complete responses dataset. Thus, this data set includes 210 complete responses. From those 150 incomplete responses, 58 respondents did not answer 1st question, 40 respondents discontinued after 1st question. Data shows a constant decline in response answers, we did not detect any striking survey question with a high dropout rate. We deleted incomplete responses and they are not in this data set.

Due to data privacy reasons, we deleted seven variables automatically assigned by Limesurvey: submitdate, lastpage, startlanguage, startdate, datestamp, ipaddr, refurl. We also deleted answers to question No 24 (email address).

References

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16.

First results of the survey are presented in the poster:

Heck, Tamara, Blümel, Ina, Heller, Lambert, Mazarakis, Athanasios, Peters, Isabella, Scherp, Ansgar, & Weisel, Luzian. (2017). Survey: Open Science in Higher Education. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.400561

Contact:

Open Science in (Higher) Education working group, see http://www.leibniz-science20.de/forschung/projekte/laufende-projekte/open-science-in-higher-education/.

[1] https://www.limesurvey.org

[2] The survey question about the awareness of OER gave a broad explanation, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim "aware".

Subject: EducationSpecific: Online Learning and FunType: Questionnaire survey data (csv / excel)Date: February - March 2020Content: Students' views about online learning and fun Data Source: Project OLAFValue: These data provide students' beliefs about how learning occurs and correlations with fun. Participants were 206 students from the OU

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.

This data set consists of data on academic libraries in the United States from 1996-2018. Multiple data sources from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) were merged. File Format: csvFile Size: 26648 KBLanguage: EnglishCoverage: Time period covered: 1996-2018.Codebook: See the codebook for Merged NCES Academic Library Survey 1996 - 2016 Dataset, which is included as a supplemental file here: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/lib_datasets/1/Sources: All data sources were downloaded from the National Center for Education Statistics website https://nces.ed.gov/. Individual datasets and years accessed are listed below.[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) Public Use Data File, Library Statistics Program, (2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/aca_data.asp[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institutional Characteristics component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Enrollment component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Human Resources component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Employees Assigned by Position component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2004, 2002), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Staff component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (1999, 1997, 1995), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7

Participation rate in education, population aged 18 to 34, by age group and type of institution attended, Canada, provinces and territories. This table is included in Section E: Transitions and outcomes: Transitions to postsecondary education of the Pan Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP). PCEIP draws from a wide variety of data sources to provide information on the school-age population, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education, transitions, and labour market outcomes. The program presents indicators for all of Canada, the provinces, the territories, as well as selected international comparisons and comparisons over time. PCEIP is an ongoing initiative of the Canadian Education Statistics Council, a partnership between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada that provides a set of statistical measures on education systems in Canada.

Learning Resources is a leading provider of educational solutions for children and students. With a rich history spanning over 40 years, the company has established itself as a trusted name in the field of education. Their offerings range from print materials to digital content, catering to a wide range of learning needs and styles.

Learning Resources is known for its commitment to quality and innovation, constantly evolving to meet the changing needs of educators and learners. Their products and services aim to make learning fun and engaging, while also ensuring alignment with curriculum standards.

The 2020-2021 School Learning Modalities dataset provides weekly estimates of school learning modality (including in-person, remote, or hybrid learning) for U.S. K-12 public and independent charter school districts for the 2020-2021 school year, from August 2020 – June 2021.

These data were modeled using multiple sources of input data (see below) to infer the most likely learning modality of a school district for a given week. These data should be considered district-level estimates and may not always reflect true learning modality, particularly for districts in which data are unavailable. If a district reports multiple modality types within the same week, the modality offered for the majority of those days is reflected in the weekly estimate. All school district metadata are sourced from the https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp#Fiscal:2,LevelId:5,SchoolYearId:35,Page:1">National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) for 2020-2021.

School learning modality types are defined as follows:

• In-Person: All schools within the district offer face-to-face instruction 5 days per week to all students at all available grade levels.
• Remote: Schools within the district do not offer face-to-face instruction; all learning is conducted online/remotely to all students at all available grade levels.
• Hybrid: Schools within the district offer a combination of in-person and remote learning; face-to-face instruction is offered less than 5 days per week, or only to a subset of students.

Data Information

• School learning modality data provided here are model estimates using combined input data and are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. This learning modality dataset was generated by combining data from four different sources: Burbio [1], MCH Strategic Data [2], the AEI/Return to Learn Tracker [3], and state dashboards [4-20]. These data were combined using a Hidden Markov model which infers the sequence of learning modalities (In-Person, Hybrid, or Remote) for each district that is most likely to produce the modalities reported by these sources. This model was trained using data from the 2020-2021 school year. Metadata describing the location, number of schools and number of students in each district comes from NCES [21].
• You can read more about the model in the CDC MMWR: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e2.htm" target="_blank">COVID-19–Related School Closures and Learning Modality Changes — United States, August 1–September 17, 2021.
• The metrics listed for each school learning modality reflect totals by district and the number of enrolled students per district for which data are available. School districts represented here exclude private schools and include the following NCES subtypes:
  • Public school district that is NOT a component of a supervisory union
  • Public school district that is a component of a supervisory union
  • Independent charter district
• “BI” in the state column refers to school districts funded by the Bureau of Indian Education.

Technical Notes

• Data from September 1, 2020 to June 25, 2021 correspond to the 2020-2021 school year. During this timeframe, all four sources of data were available. Inferred modalities with a probability below 0.75 were deemed inconclusive and were omitted.
• Data for the month of July may show “In Person” status although most school districts are effectively closed during this time for summer break. Users may wish to exclude July data from use for this reason where applicable.

Sources

1. K-12 School Opening Tracker. Burbio 2021; https://cai.burbio.com/school-opening-tracker/. June 2021.
2. COVID-19 IMPACT: School District Operational Status. MCH Strategic Data: 2021; https://www.mchdata.com/covid19/schoolclosings. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
3. Return to Learn Tracker. American Enterprise Institute 2021; https://www.returntolearntracker.net/. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
4. Colorado School District Reopening Plans. Colorado Department of Education 2021; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQipdjO8QWhilhhJ4bX0FBebnHEzK1G3LEDQbE_S-xRvs2t0oHNm--acHwMRFmL9uKw4cXcOUqy1V66/pubhtml. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
5. Connecticut Report Cards. Connecticut State Department of Education 2021; http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
6. COVID Planning Tool. Hawaii Department of Education 2021; https://public.tableau.com/views/COVIDPlanningTool-Embed700px/SimpleDashboard. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
7. Idaho School District Status. Idaho State Department of Education 2021; https://ioem.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/379299e56f234fa89cff3c8c6acf3ac8. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
8. How Illinois Districts Are Providing Instruction: Virtual, In-Person, and Blended Learning. Illinois State Board of Education 2021; https://isp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/fceeacb37da04de4b237ed941dd7d5c4. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
9. Digital Learning Model Schools. Louisiana Department of Education 2021; https://analytics.la.gov/t/DOE/views/DigitalLearningModel/SchoolLevelModeofLearning. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
10. Safe Learning Model Dashboard. Minnesota Department of Education 2021; https://analytics.education.state.mn.us/t/MDEPublic/views/MN_Safe_Learning_Model/Dashboard. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
11. Coronavirus (COVID-19) information. Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 2021; https://dese.mo.gov/communications/coronavirus-covid-19-information. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
12. North Carolina School Dashboard. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 2021. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1We8gDpa4Do5NR83Nf8niGE_YxzLDf-KZh-tVWifStxE/edit#gid=0. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
13. Ring the Bell: Return to In-Person Learning. New Mexico Public Education Department 2021; https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/reentry-district-and-school-guidance/. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
14. Reset and Restart Education. Ohio Department of Education 2021; http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Reset-and-Restart. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
15. 2020-21 School Status. Oregon Department of Education 2021; https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/healthsafety/Pages/2020-21-School-Status.aspx. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
16. Current Operational Status. South Carolina Department of Education 2021; https://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/schools/district-and-school-closures/operational-status/#blk2102. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
17. Tennessee Department of Education COVID-19 District Information. Tennessee Department of Education 2021; https://districtinformation.tnedu.gov/covid-information/search/-1. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
18. State Snapshot: Virginia School Operational Status. Virginia Department of Education 2021; https://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/health_medical/office/reopen-status.shtml. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
19. Current Reopening Status of Vermont's K-12 Public Schools. Vermont Department of Financial Regulation 2021; https://dfr.vermont.gov/about-us/covid-19/school-reopening#public-school. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
20. School Reopening Data. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2021; https://www.k12.wa.us/about-ospi/press-releases/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-resources/school-reopening-data. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).
21. Public school districts. National Center for Education Statistics 2021; https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/. (30 June 2021, date last accessed).

This dataset provides a comprehensive overview of academic performance, student engagement, and sentiment trends collected from educational institutions in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, including institutions such as Southern Methodist University, University of Texas at Arlington, Dallas College, and Texas Christian University. Covering the period from January 2018 to December 2024, the dataset includes hourly records that capture students' experiences across various programs and disciplines. Data sources include institutional records, learning management systems, and student feedback platforms, providing insights into academic achievements, student behaviors, and support services utilization.

The dataset aims to facilitate in-depth analysis of performance trends, engagement patterns, and the effectiveness of academic support services, making it suitable for educational data mining and predictive modeling. Prior to analysis, the data underwent preprocessing steps to handle missing values, mitigate outliers, and adjust for institutional variations, ensuring reliability and consistency.

Dataset Features Overview

S.No Features Description 1 Timestamp The date and time when the data was recorded, on an hourly basis. 2 Student_ID A unique identifier assigned to each student in the dataset. 3 Age The age of the student at the time of data collection. 4 Gender The gender of the student (encoded as binary or categorical values). 5 Ethnicity The ethnic background of the student, based on available demographic data. 6 SES Socioeconomic status indicator reflecting the student's background. 7 Location The geographic location where the data was collected, specifically in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. 8 Enrollment_Status Status indicating whether the student is enrolled full-time or part-time. 9 GPA Grade Point Average, representing the student's academic performance. 10 Attendance_Rate The rate at which the student attends classes, expressed as a percentage. 11 Study_Hours_per_Week The number of hours the student spends studying each week. 12 Extracurricular_Participation A score indicating the level of participation in extracurricular activities. 13 Course_Load The number of courses a student is taking during a given period. 14 Previous_Academic_Performance A historical indicator of the student's academic performance. 15 Course_Type The type of course (e.g., lecture, lab, seminar). 16 Instructor_Rating A rating reflecting the student's satisfaction with the instructor's teaching. 17 Learning_Style_Compatibility A score indicating how well the student's preferred learning style aligns with the course's format. 18 Career_Alignment_Indicator Measures the alignment between the course content and the student's career goals. 19 Library_Usage_Frequency The frequency with which the student accesses the library or online learning resources. 20 Study_Group_Participation Participation in study groups or collaborative learning activities. 21 Resource_Access_Score An indicator of the student's access to academic resources. 22 Peer_Interaction_Score A measure of the student's interaction with peers. 23 Stress_Indicator_Score A score reflecting the student's reported stress level. ... ... ... 43 Learning_Satisfaction_Level Indicator of the student's satisfaction with their learning experience. This dataset allows researchers and analysts to explore key factors affecting academic success, engagement, and satisfaction in a real-world educational environment.

The aim of the education statistics domain is to provide comparable statistics and indicators on key aspects of the education systems across Europe. The data cover participation and completion of education programmes by pupils and students, personnel in education and the cost and type of resources dedicated to education.

The standards on international statistics on education and training systems are set by the three international organisations jointly administering the UOE data collection:

• the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation Institute for Statistics (UNESCO-UIS),
• the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and,
• the Statistical Office of the European Union (EUROSTAT).

The results of the UOE data collection on education statistics are compiled on the basis of national administrative sources, reported by Ministries of Education or National Statistical Offices.

The following topics are covered:

• Context - School-aged population, overall participation rates in education;
• Distribution of pupils/students by level;
• Participation/enrolment in education (ISCED 0-4);
• Tertiary education participation;
• Tertiary education graduates;
• Teaching staff (ISCED 1-3);
• Pupil/students-teacher ratio and average class size (ISCED 1-3);
• Language learning (ISCED 1-3);
• Regional enrolments;
• Expenditure on education in current prices;
• Expenditure on education in constant prices;
• Expenditure on education as % of GDP or public expenditure;
• Expenditure on public and private educational institutions;
• Financial aid to students;
• Funding of education.

Other tables, used to measure progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training, are gathered in the Thematic indicators tables. They contain the following indicators:

• Teachers and trainers;
• Mathematics, science and technology enrolments and graduates;
• Investments in education and training;
• Participation rates in education by age and sex;
• Foreign language learning;
• Student mobility.

Optimizing higher education resource allocation in western China is vital for advancing national development through education and talent. This research covers the DEA Malmquist to examine the effectiveness of higher education materials distributed statically and vigorously within twelve provinces in the western part of China. It also studies the internal inequalities in resource distribution effectiveness and employs the Tobit model to identify which the main factors affecting the efficiency of higher education resource allocation. The primarily data sources from the China Education Yearbook (2011–2021). The findings indicate that the comprehensive technical efficiency (TE), pure technical efficiency (PTE), and scale efficiency (SE) have not reached the efficiency frontier in higher education resource allocation in western China. Conversely, the dynamic analysis reveals a decline in overall efficiency in resource allocation for higher education in the western region, with significant variations in efficiency levels among the provinces. Factors such as education expenditure, GDP per capita, total GDP, and the breadth of education significantly impact the efficiency of resource allocation for higher education in the western region. To improve this efficiency, it is essential to boost financial input into education, adjust resource allocation strategies, focus on matching educational quality with market demands, and implement dynamic monitoring and evaluation.