Education Data Dashboards Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Education Data Dashboards market size was valued at $2.8 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $9.6 billion by 2033, expanding at a robust CAGR of 14.7% during the forecast period of 2025–2033. The primary driver of this remarkable growth is the increasing demand for actionable insights in education, fueled by the widespread adoption of digital learning platforms and the need for data-driven decision-making among educators, administrators, and policymakers globally. As educational institutions strive to improve learning outcomes and operational efficiency, the integration of advanced analytics and real-time reporting through education data dashboards is becoming indispensable.

Regional Outlook

North America currently holds the largest share of the global Education Data Dashboards market, accounting for approximately 38% of the total market value in 2024. This dominance is largely attributed to the region’s mature education technology ecosystem, high digital literacy rates, and strong government initiatives supporting EdTech adoption. School districts and higher education institutions across the United States and Canada have aggressively implemented data dashboards to track student performance, allocate resources, and drive policy reforms. Furthermore, the presence of leading dashboard solution providers and a robust infrastructure for cloud-based services have accelerated market penetration. North America’s regulatory landscape, which emphasizes transparency and accountability in education, further propels the adoption of sophisticated data analytics tools, making it the most lucrative market for education data dashboards.

In contrast, the Asia Pacific region is emerging as the fastest-growing market, forecasted to register an impressive CAGR of 18.2% through 2033. Factors driving this rapid expansion include significant investments in education technology by governments, especially in countries like China, India, and Australia, coupled with a burgeoning population of digital-native students. The region’s education sector is undergoing a digital transformation, with increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions to address scalability and accessibility challenges. Major EdTech companies are actively partnering with local educational institutions to introduce tailored dashboard solutions that cater to regional curricula and languages. Additionally, the rising demand for personalized learning experiences and the proliferation of mobile devices are further accelerating the uptake of education data dashboards across Asia Pacific.

Meanwhile, emerging economies in Latin America, Middle East, and Africa are witnessing a gradual but steady adoption of education data dashboards. These regions face unique challenges such as limited digital infrastructure, budget constraints, and varying levels of educator training in data analytics. However, localized demand is growing, driven by policy reforms aimed at improving educational quality and accountability. Governments and international organizations are investing in pilot projects and capacity-building initiatives to bridge the digital divide. While adoption rates remain lower compared to developed markets, the long-term outlook is positive as these regions prioritize digital transformation in education and seek to overcome implementation barriers through public-private partnerships and targeted funding.

Report Scope

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 dashboard includes reports comparing expenditure, enrollment, and staffing data collected from Massachusetts public schools and districts each year. The expenditure data includes district and school level operating expenditures, encompassing general fund expenditures and grant and revolving fund expenditures. In addition to showing the overall cost per pupil, they provide detail about how much districts, charter schools, and virtual schools spend in specific functional areas such as administration, teaching, and maintenance.

This dashboard contains the same data that is also published in the following datasets in the E2C Hub: District Expenditures by Spending Category District Expenditures by Function Code School Expenditures by Spending Category

This dataset include two .csv files containing the integrated dataset used by the COVID-19 School Dashboard website to report and maps confirmed school-related cases of COVID-19 in publicly funded elementary and secondary schools in Ontario, Canada, and connects this to data on school social background characteristics. One csv file reports cases from 2020-09-10 to 2021-04-14 (2020 school year) while the other csv file reports cases from 2021-09-13 to 2021-12-22 (2021 school year). Two accompanying .doc files are included to describe the variables in the .csv files.

Data Download page from the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). The files on this page echo the data behind the state schools dashboard and several other visualization products from OSPI.

This dashboard displays state and district level educator data by race and ethnicity. It was created to support the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's commitment to provide all students with a racially diverse and culturally responsive educator workforce.

The Employed Educators Report provides the most recent three years of data for educators employed in Massachusetts public schools. Total educators, new hires, retention, experienced educators, and in-field data are displayed by job classification.

This dashboard contains the same data that is also published in the following datasets in the E2C Hub: Educator Dashboard: MTEL Educator Dashboard: Licensure Educator Dashboard: Educator Preparation Educator Dashboard: Teacher Indicators Educator Dashboard: Total Educators, Retention, and New Hires

Abstract

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

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

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

Sampling deviation

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

A total of 250 schools were surveyed.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

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

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

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

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

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

Sampling error estimates

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

Abstract

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

Sampling deviation

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

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

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

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

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

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

Cleaning operations

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

Sampling error estimates

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

This dashboard provides detailed data about charter schools in Massachusetts. It contains a variety of indicators across many categories, including enrollment, academics, attendance, suspension, retention, attrition, mobility, graduation, and dropout. Indicators are disaggregated by grade and student group, and are contextualized with comparison data.

For more information about the Charter School Dashboard, visit the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's website on Board Governance and Charter Amendments.

There are 4 high schools and 4 middle schools located in York County, Virginia. The location of a student's permanent residence determines the school he/she will attend. School District boundaries have not changed since the 2009-2010 school year.

Description: This ArcGIS Dashboard was created as a demo for FedGIS 2025 that shows the potential of ArcGIS Dashboard. The dashboard provides situational awareness of U.S. public schools as they are impacted by ongoing NWS Weather Events and Alerts. However, the school data is likely out-of-date unless the associated ArcGIS Pro Notebook has been ran to update the data.Associated Resources: This Notebook was used as part of the demo for FedGIS 2025. Below are the associated resources:Living Atlas Layer: NWS National Weather Events and AlertsLiving Atlas Layer: U.S. Public SchoolsArcGIS Pro Notebook Demo: Automate School Weather UpdatesUpdatable Hosted Feature Service: HIFLD Public Schools with Event DataLatency: This specific Dashboard may take a long time to open. But once opened, the Dashboard should work without much issue.

An interactive mapping tool for visualizing the performance of California's schools and school districts by student group for each of the 2024 California Dashboard state indicators. The California School Dashboard is the state’s academic accountability and improvement tool designed for parents and educators

Abstract

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

Sampling deviation

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

EGRA Details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

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

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

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

The 2021-2022 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 2021-2022 school year and the Fall 2022 semester, from August 2021 – December 2022.

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.

• 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.

• Data from August 1, 2021 to June 24, 2022 correspond to the 2021-2022 school year. During this time frame, data from the AEI/Return to Learn Tracker and most state dashboards were not available. Inferred modalities with a probability below 0.6 were deemed inconclusive and were omitted. During the Fall 2022 semester, modalities for districts with a school closure reported by Burbio were updated to either “Remote”, if the closure spanned the entire week, or “Hybrid”, if the closure spanned 1-4 days of the week.
• Data from August 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 correspond to the 2022-2023 school year and were processed in a similar manner to data from the 2021-2022 school year.
• 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.

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 contains the counts of students that enrolled in and completed Dual Credit courses while enrolled as students in WA Public K12 school, broken out by various disaggregations (school district, cohort year, type of dual credit course, student characteristics)

This data is available through the ‘Explore data and files’ section in the file called ‘Time series - APS per entry by institution type’.In addition it is accessible through the dashboard linked below. The dashboard combines data from this statistical release (covering the latest 2022/23 provisional data ) with selected older data compiled from previous versions of the ‘A level and other 16 to 18 results’ statistical release: 16-18 Time-series attainment and single year entriesOn the left-hand side, clicking on the link ‘Attainment: APS per entry and average result’ brings up the dashboard with attainment data in terms of APS per entry.Data including the applied general and tech level cohorts starts in 2015/16 (when these cohorts were first defined in this statistical release, and school and college data). Data for the A level cohort starts in 2012/13.

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 dashboard shows snapshots of individual districts and schools on a variety of indicators, including enrollment, demographics, staffing, MCAS scores, graduation rates and more.

The DART: Success After High School Dashboard is a tool used to support the self-evaluation process for whole districts as well as individual schools. It contains a set of data elements provide an indication of the overall condition of a district or school's efforts to ensure all students are ready for their next steps as productive and contributing members of society.

This tool contains data elements that cover a range of school, district, post-secondary and career readiness information including demographics, high school indicators, high school performance, programs of study, post-secondary education outcomes, and career development education.

The DARTs provide a gauge of the overall condition of a district or school, but do not have all available information. They should be treated as a good starting point for exploring the data and identifying areas of focus for further inquiry. Please see the Info tab on the dashboard for detailed data analysis considerations.

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

MELQO data was merged with the Peru school frame in order to optimally stratify. We stratified on the basis of urban/rual and department. There are 25 departments in Peru. In 2017, Peru conducted an examination of around 4,500 children between 5 and 8 years old, with a median age of 6. The MELQO exam is quite similar to our ECD examination module. We are able to use data from this 2017 survey to choose the number of schools in each province optimally by calculating means and standard deviations by province and feeding this information into the optimal stratification algorithm. See https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/SamplingStrata/vignettes/SamplingStrata.html. Provinces with low standard deviations among students in terms of their MELQO development scores are allocated fewer schools compared to an allocation that is simply based on population, and provinces with high standard deviations are allocated more schools.

203 schools were chosen for our survey after optimally stratifying.

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.