About the Private School Universe Survey (PSS)OverviewWith increasing concern about alternatives in education, the interest and need for data on private education has also increased. NCES has made the collection of data on private elementary and secondary schools a priority.The purposes of this data collection activity are; a) to generate biennial data on the total number of private schools, teachers, and students; and b) to build an accurate and complete list of private schools to serve as a sampling frame for NCES surveys of private schools. The PSS began with the 1989-90 school year and has been conducted every two years since.DesignThe target population for the survey consists of all private schools in the U.S. that meet the NCES definition (i.e., a private school is not supported primarily by public funds, provides classroom instruction for one or more of grades K-12 or comparable ungraded levels, and has one or more teachers. Organizations or institutions that provide support for home schooling without offering classroom instruction for students are not included.). The survey universe is composed of schools from several sources. The main source is a list frame, initially developed for the 1989-90 survey. The list is updated periodically by matching it with lists provided by nationwide private school associations, state departments of education, and other national private school guides and sources. Additionally, an area frame search is conducted by the Bureau of the Census.ComponentsThe PSS consists of a single survey that is completed by administrative personnel in private schools. Information collected includes: religious orientation; level of school; size of school; length of school year, length of school day; total enrollment (K-12); number of high school graduates, whether a school is single-sexed or coeducational and enrollment by sex; number of teachers employed; program emphasis; existence and type of kindergarten program.Policy and Research IssuesThe Private School Survey produces data similar to that of the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) for the public schools. The data are useful for a variety of policy- and research-relevant issues, such as the growth of religiously-affiliated schools, the length of the school year, the number of private high school graduates, and the number of private school students and teachers.Data OrganizationThis page collects all of the tables in the PSS tables library. The tables are organized into folders by year, and then further folders by category. Finally, each table has its own folder, which contains one or two excel files depending on the table.Every year folder has a catalog csv that provides a crosswalk between the folder names and the original table names, except for the 2001-2002 folder, where a catalog could not be generated.Additionally, the documentation folder has all documentation and methodological documents found here: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/pssdata.asp, though not data files.The reports folder contains reports related to PSS found via searching NCES's resource library.

The National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Education Demographic and Geographic Estimate (EDGE) program develops bi-annually updated point locations (latitude and longitude) for private schools included in the NCES Private School Survey (PSS). The PSS is conducted to provide a biennial count of the total number of private schools, teachers, and students. The PSS school location and associated geographic area assignments are derived from reported information about the physical location of private schools. The school geocode file includes supplemental geographic information for the universe of schools reported in the 2019-2020 PSS school collection, and they can be integrated with the survey files through use of institutional identifiers included in both sources. For more information about NCES school point data, see: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/SchoolLocations and https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/LocaleBoundaries.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Abstract

This impact evaluation was conducted by IDinsight for STIR Education in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in India, and was funded by a World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund grant. The study seeks to evaluate the impact of STIR's purely motivational, pedagogically neutral, teacher-focused model on student learning levels. STIR works with teachers in low-cost and government schools in order to improve student learning by empowering teachers to act as change-makers and to innovate to overcome challenges in the classroom. IDinsight conducted two three-armed randomized control trials. The study looks at outcomes from 180 Affordable Private Schools (APS) in Delhi and 270 government schools in the Raebareli and Varanasi districts of Uttar Pradesh. The study began in early 2015, and lasted two academic years. In addition to measuring STIR's impact in two different contexts, the study simultaneously tests two iterations of STIR's model in these two contexts.

Geographic coverage

One district in Delhi - East Delhi, and two districts in Uttar Pradesh - Raebareli and Varanasi

Analysis unit

For student learning, the basic unit of analysis is students. For classroom practices, the basic unit of analysis is teachers. For teacher motivation, the basic unit of analysis is teachers.

Universe

• 180 Affordable Private Schools in Delhi, 540 teachers amongst these schools and 5,400 students
• 270 Government Schools in Uttar Pradesh, 810 teachers amongst these schools and 8,100 students

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Baseline Respondent Identification and Sampling Strategy:

Delhi:

Teacher Motivation: STIR initially did a search process of several hundred Affordable Private Schools (APS) in east Delhi. From these schools, STIR passed school names onto IDinsight where the teachers might be interested in working with IDinsight. IDinsight attempted to sample all schools for the Teacher Motivation survey. In total, IDinsight interviewed 1,259 teachers for the Teacher Motivation survey.

Classroom Observation: From these 1,259 teachers, STIR did an additional round of screening to determine which teachers were the most interested and returned a list of 810 teachers to IDinsight. This list formed the basis of the classroom observation. However, due to attrition and refusals at the school level we were unable to meet our target of teachers and ended up surveying only 342 teachers.

Student Testing: For sampling students in the classroom, IDinsight sampled 10 students per classroom in classes (of all teachers covered for the classroom observation) with more than 10 students using the attendance register for the day the enumerator came to the class. In classes with fewer than 10 students, all children were sampled.

Uttar Pradesh:

Teacher Motivation: In Uttar Pradesh, IDinsight obtained a list of all clusters in Raebareli and Varanasi districts that STIR was working in. From this list, IDinsight selected all clusters with more than 16 schools. This was done to ensure that there would be enough schools in the cluster to assign some to the control group while also maintaining enough treatment schools for STIR to form a network. For the Teacher Motivation survey, IDinsight surveyed all teachers in the school, yielding 1,145 teachers.

Classroom Observation: For the classroom observation, IDinsight sampled roughly 2/3 of the teachers who completed the Teacher Motivation questionnaire, to get a final list of roughly 810 teachers. Teachers were added to this list due to teachers dropping out and the final number was 838 teachers.

Student Testing: For sampling students in the classroom, IDinsight sampled 10 students per classroom in classes with more than 10 students using the attendance register for the day the enumerator came to the class. In classes with fewer than 10 students, all children were sampled.

Midline Respondent Identification and Sampling Strategy:

For midline, which took place at the beginning of the second academic year, we followed up with teachers and students surveyed at baseline. Teachers were added only in the case where the number of teachers still teaching in the school from our baseline lists fell below a certain number. In Delhi, teachers were added if less than two teachers from our list in a given school were available and in Uttar Pradesh, new teachers were added only if all teachers from our baseline lists in a given school dropped out.

The sampling strategy had two clear advantages: 1) It helped us target teachers and students that have been exposed to STIR for as long as possible since the timeline for the overall evaluation is relatively short. 2) The evaluations are already quite complex and this helped have a clear interpretation and narrative surrounding the results.

Delhi:

Teacher Motivation: From the list of 1,259 teachers surveyed at teacher motivation baseline, 453 teachers dropped out of schools during the academic year and hence were not available for surveying during midline. A further 65 teachers refused to participate and 84 teachers were not available during the data collection period. Given this, the total number of teachers surveyed at teacher motivation midline was 657. These teachers formed the sample for analyses.

Classroom Observation: For classroom observations, we attempted to collect data for all 811 teachers on the Delhi original list. For those schools where the number of teachers available from our 811 list fell below two, 148 new teachers were added based on a random selection from those teachers employed at that school as of 1 July 2015. A total of 459 teachers were surveyed as part of the classroom observation midline.

Student Testing: For testing of student learning levels, all students surveyed at baseline formed the potential sample at midline. Among the 3,367 students from baseline, 1,956 students were tracked and surveyed at midline. 1,127 students had dropped out from the schools. 40 students were absent throughout the course of the data collection, and were not found in schools during any of the five revisits. The remaining 244 students were in schools where we could not survey.

Uttar Pradesh:

Teacher Motivation: From the 1,145 teachers surveyed at baseline, 288 teachers dropped out of schools during the course of the academic year and were hence not available for data collection. An additional 61 refused to participate in the data collection and 41 were not available through the course of the data collection. The final number of teachers surveyed at midline were 755. This was the sample for analysis.

Classroom Observation: From the list of 838 teachers surveyed at baseline, we successfully observed the classrooms of 734 of these teachers at midline. Another 13 teachers were added in schools where all teachers from our 838 had dropped out. 12 of these 13 were in Raebareli and 1 was in Varanasi. In total, 747 teachers were surveyed. 82 teachers dropped out of the schools in our sample. 13 teachers refused to participate in the data collection and 14 teachers were absent throughout the survey period and were not available on either of our visits.

Student Testing: Of the 7,386 students tested at baseline, a total of 4,560 students were also tested at midline. 615 students were absent all days of visits to the schools. 149 students were in the four schools that refused data collection. 2,062 dropped out of the schools in our sample.

Endline Respondent Identification and Sampling Strategy:

For endline, which took place after the end of the second academic year, we followed up with teachers and students surveyed at midline. In Delhi, one teacher was added per school to the classroom observation sample where possible. Additional teachers were added to the teacher motivation sample by offering the survey to all the teachers in our sample schools. The sampling strategy had two clear advantages:

1) It helped us target teachers and students that have been exposed to STIR for as long as possible since the timeline for the overall evaluation is relatively short. 2) The evaluations are already quite complex and this helped have a clear interpretation and narrative surrounding the results.

Delhi:

Teacher Motivation: From the list of 657 teachers surveyed at teacher motivation midline, 101 teachers dropped out of schools during the academic year and hence were not available for surveying during endline. A further 25 teachers refused to participate and 50 teachers were not available during the data collection period. Given this, the total number of teachers surveyed at teacher motivation midline was 481. These teachers formed the sample for analyses.

Classroom Observation: For classroom observations, we attempted to collect data for all 459 teachers on the Delhi midline list as well as 102 teachers we surveyed at baseline and couldn't at midline but were hopeful of covering in the last survey. A new teacher was added to each school's sample where possible. A total of 376 teachers were surveyed as part of the classroom observation endline.

Student Testing: For testing of student learning levels, all students surveyed at midline formed the potential sample at endline. Among the 1,956 students from baseline, 1,843 students were tracked and surveyed at midline. 49 students had dropped out from the schools. 45 students were absent throughout the course of the data collection, and were not found in schools during any of the five revisits.

Uttar Pradesh:

Teacher Motivation: From the 967 teachers surveyed at midline, 105 teachers were transfered and 17 retired during the course of the academic year and were hence not available for data collection. An additional 36 refused to participate in the data collection and 26 were not available through

Abstract

The GSHS is a school-based survey which uses a self-administered questionnaire to obtain data on young people's health behaviour and protective factors related to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children and adults worldwide.

Geographic coverage

Subnational coverage for Bogotá, Bogotá (official schools), Bogotá (private schools), Bucaramanga City, Cali City, Manizales, and Valledupar City.

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

School-going adolescents aged 13-15 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The 2006 Colombia GSHS was a school-based survey of students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10. A two-stage cluster sample design was used to produce data representative of all students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 in Colombia. At the first stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to enrollment size. At the second stage, classes were randomly selected and all students in selected classes were eligible to participate.

A total of 1,737 students participated in the Colombia (Bogotá) GSHS. A total of 1,170 students participated in the Colombia (Bogotá, official schools) GSHS. A total of 567 students participated in the Colombia (Bogotá, private schools) GSHS. A total of 2,093 students participated in the Colombia (Bucaramanga City) GSHS. A total of 1,945 students participated in the Colombia (Cali City) GSHS. A total of 2,037 students participated in the Colombia (Manizales) GSHS. A total of 2,095 students participated in the Colombia (Valledupar City) GSHS.

Mode of data collection

self-administered

Research instrument

The following core modules were included in the survey: alcohol use dietary behaviours drug use physical activity sexual behaviours tobacco use violence and unintentional injury

Cleaning operations

All data processing (scanning, cleaning, editing, and weighting) was conducted at the US Centers for Disease Control.

Response rate

Bogotá: The school response rate was 92%, the student response rate was 90%, and the overall response rate was 83%. Bogotá, official schools: The school response rate was 97%, the student response rate was 90%, and the overall response rate was 87%. Bogotá, private schools: The school response rate was 85%, the student response rate was 91%, and the overall response rate was 77%. Bucaramanga City: The school response rate was 93%, the student response rate was 86%, and the overall response rate was 81%. Cali City: The school response rate was 90%, the student response rate was 86%, and the overall response rate was 77%. Manizales: The school response rate was 93%, the student response rate was 91%, and the overall response rate was 85%. Valledupar City: The school response rate was 97%, the student response rate was 88%, and the overall response rate was 86%.

Abstract

The GSHS is a school-based survey which uses a self-administered questionnaire to obtain data on young people's health behaviour and protective factors related to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children and adults worldwide.

Geographic coverage

National, private and public

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

School-going adolescents aged 13-17 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The 2015 Thailand GSHS was a school-based survey of students in Grades 7-12, which are typically attended by students aged 13-17. A two-stage cluster sample design was used to produce data representative of all students in Grades 7-12 in Thailand. At the first stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to enrollment size. At the second stage, classes were randomly selected and all students in selected classes were eligible to participate.

Mode of data collection

self-administered

Research instrument

The following core modules were included in the survey: alcohol use dietary behaviours drug use hygiene mental health physical activity protective factors sexual behaviours tobacco use violence and unintentional injury

Cleaning operations

All data processing (scanning, cleaning, editing, and weighting) was conducted at the US Centers for Disease Control.

Response rate

National: The school response rate was 98%, the student response rate was 90%, and the overall response rate was 89%. Private: The school response rate was 97%, the student response rate was 91%, and the overall response rate was 88%. Public: The school response rate was 100%, the student response rate was 90%, and the overall response rate was 90%.