In "Sample Student Data", there are 6 sheets. There are three sheets with sample datasets, one for each of the three different exercise protocols described (CrP Sample Dataset, Glycolytic Dataset, Oxidative Dataset). Additionally, there are three sheets with sample graphs created using one of the three datasets (CrP Sample Graph, Glycolytic Graph, Oxidative Graph). Each dataset and graph pairs are from different subjects. · CrP Sample Dataset and CrP Sample Graph: This is an example of a dataset and graph created from an exercise protocol designed to stress the creatine phosphate system. Here, the subject was a track and field athlete who threw the shot put for the DeSales University track team. The NIRS monitor was placed on the right triceps muscle, and the student threw the shot put six times with a minute rest in between throws. Data was collected telemetrically by the NIRS device and then downloaded after the student had completed the protocol. · Glycolytic Dataset and Glycolytic Graph: This is an example of a dataset and graph created from an exercise protocol designed to stress the glycolytic energy system. In this example, the subject performed continuous squat jumps for 30 seconds, followed by a 90 second rest period, for a total of three exercise bouts. The NIRS monitor was place on the left gastrocnemius muscle. Here again, data was collected telemetrically by the NIRS device and then downloaded after he had completed the protocol. · Oxidative Dataset and Oxidative Graph: In this example, the dataset and graph are from an exercise protocol designed to stress the oxidative system. Here, the student held a sustained, light-intensity, isometric biceps contraction (pushing against a table). The NIRS monitor was attached to the left biceps muscle belly. Here, data was collected by a student observing the SmO2 values displayed on a secondary device; specifically, a smartphone with the IPSensorMan APP displaying data. The recorder student observed and recorded the data on an Excel Spreadsheet, and marked the times that exercise began and ended on the Spreadsheet.

If this Data Set is useful, and upvote is appreciated. This data approach student achievement in secondary education of two Portuguese schools. The data attributes include student grades, demographic, social and school related features) and it was collected by using school reports and questionnaires. Two datasets are provided regarding the performance in two distinct subjects: Mathematics (mat) and Portuguese language (por). In [Cortez and Silva, 2008], the two datasets were modeled under binary/five-level classification and regression tasks. Important note: the target attribute G3 has a strong correlation with attributes G2 and G1. This occurs because G3 is the final year grade (issued at the 3rd period), while G1 and G2 correspond to the 1st and 2nd-period grades. It is more difficult to predict G3 without G2 and G1, but such prediction is much more useful (see paper source for more details).

The file set is a freely downloadable aggregation of information about Australian schools. The individual files represent a series of tables which, when considered together, form a relational database. The records cover the years 2008-2014 and include information on approximately 9500 primary and secondary school main-campuses and around 500 subcampuses. The records all relate to school-level data; no data about individuals is included. All the information has previously been published and is publicly available but it has not previously been released as a documented, useful aggregation. The information includes: (a) the names of schools (b) staffing levels, including full-time and part-time teaching and non-teaching staff (c) student enrolments, including the number of boys and girls (d) school financial information, including Commonwealth government, state government, and private funding (e) test data, potentially for school years 3, 5, 7 and 9, relating to an Australian national testing programme know by the trademark 'NAPLAN'

Documentation of this Edition 2016.1 is incomplete but the organization of the data should be readily understandable to most people. If you are a researcher, the simplest way to study the data is to make use of the SQLite3 database called 'school-data-2016-1.db'. If you are unsure how to use an SQLite database, ask a guru.

The database was constructed directly from the other included files by running the following command at a command-line prompt: sqlite3 school-data-2016-1.db < school-data-2016-1.sql Note that a few, non-consequential, errors will be reported if you run this command yourself. The reason for the errors is that the SQLite database is created by importing a series of '.csv' files. Each of the .csv files contains a header line with the names of the variable relevant to each column. The information is useful for many statistical packages but it is not what SQLite expects, so it complains about the header. Despite the complaint, the database will be created correctly.

Briefly, the data are organized as follows. (a) The .csv files ('comma separated values') do not actually use a comma as the field delimiter. Instead, the vertical bar character '|' (ASCII Octal 174 Decimal 124 Hex 7C) is used. If you read the .csv files using Microsoft Excel, Open Office, or Libre Office, you will need to set the field-separator to be '|'. Check your software documentation to understand how to do this. (b) Each school-related record is indexed by an identifer called 'ageid'. The ageid uniquely identifies each school and consequently serves as the appropriate variable for JOIN-ing records in different data files. For example, the first school-related record after the header line in file 'students-headed-bar.csv' shows the ageid of the school as 40000. The relevant school name can be found by looking in the file 'ageidtoname-headed-bar.csv' to discover that the the ageid of 40000 corresponds to a school called 'Corpus Christi Catholic School'. (3) In addition to the variable 'ageid' each record is also identified by one or two 'year' variables. The most important purpose of a year identifier will be to indicate the year that is relevant to the record. For example, if one turn again to file 'students-headed-bar.csv', one sees that the first seven school-related records after the header line all relate to the school Corpus Christi Catholic School with ageid of 40000. The variable that identifies the important differences between these seven records is the variable 'studentyear'. 'studentyear' shows the year to which the student data refer. One can see, for example, that in 2008, there were a total of 410 students enrolled, of whom 185 were girls and 225 were boys (look at the variable names in the header line). (4) The variables relating to years are given different names in each of the different files ('studentsyear' in the file 'students-headed-bar.csv', 'financesummaryyear' in the file 'financesummary-headed-bar.csv'). Despite the different names, the year variables provide the second-level means for joining information acrosss files. For example, if you wanted to relate the enrolments at a school in each year to its financial state, you might wish to JOIN records using 'ageid' in the two files and, secondarily, matching 'studentsyear' with 'financialsummaryyear'. (5) The manipulation of the data is most readily done using the SQL language with the SQLite database but it can also be done in a variety of statistical packages. (6) It is our intention for Edition 2016-2 to create large 'flat' files suitable for use by non-researchers who want to view the data with spreadsheet software. The disadvantage of such 'flat' files is that they contain vast amounts of redundant information and might not display the data in the form that the user most wants it. (7) Geocoding of the schools is not available in this edition. (8) Some files, such as 'sector-headed-bar.csv' are not used in the creation of the database but are provided as a convenience for researchers who might wish to recode some of the data to remove redundancy. (9) A detailed example of a suitable SQLite query can be found in the file 'school-data-sqlite-example.sql'. The same query, used in the context of analyses done with the excellent, freely available R statistical package (http://www.r-project.org) can be seen in the file 'school-data-with-sqlite.R'.

2018 DC School Report Card. STAR Framework student group scores by school and school framework. The STAR Framework measures performance for 10 different student groups with a minimum n size of 10 or more students at the school. The student groups are All Students, Students with Disabilities, Student who are At Risk, English Learners, and students who identify as the following ESSA-defined racial/ethnic groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino of any race, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and Two or more races. The Alternative School Framework includes an eleventh student group, At-Risk Students with Disabilities.Some students are included in the school- and LEA-level aggregations that will display on the DC School Report Card but are not included in calculations for the STAR Framework. These students are included in the “All Report Card Students” student group to distinguish from the “All Students” group used for the STAR Framework.Supplemental:Metric scores are not reported for n-sizes less than 10; metrics that have an n-size less than 10 are not included in calculation of STAR scores and ratings.At the state level, teacher data is reported on the DC School Report Card for all schools, high-poverty schools, and low-poverty schools. The definition for high-poverty and low-poverty schools is included in DC's ESSA State Plan. At the school level, teacher data is reported for the entire school, and at the LEA-level, teacher data is reported for all schools only.On the STAR Framework, 203 schools received STAR scores and ratings based on data from the 2017-18 school year. Of those 203 schools, 2 schools closed after the completion of the 2017-18 school year (Excel Academy PCS and Washington Mathematics Science Technology PCHS). Because those two schools closed, they do not receive a School Report Card and report card metrics were not calculated for those schools.Schools with non-traditional grade configurations may be assigned multiple school frameworks as part of the STAR Framework. For example, a K-8 school would be assigned the Elementary School Framework and the Middle School Framework. Because a school may have multiple school frameworks, the total number of school framework scores across the city will be greater than the total number of schools that received a STAR score and rating.Detailed information about the metrics and calculations for the DC School Report Card and STAR Framework can be found in the 2018 DC School Report Card and STAR Framework Technical Guide (https://osse.dc.gov/publication/2018-dc-school-report-card-and-star-framework-technical-guide).

This dataset includes the attendance rate for public school students PK-12 by student group and by district during the 2021-2022 school year. Student groups include: Students experiencing homelessness Students with disabilities Students who qualify for free/reduced lunch English learners All high needs students Non-high needs students Students by race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino of any race, Black or African American, White, All other races) Attendance rates are provided for each student group by district and for the state. Students who are considered high needs include students who are English language learners, who receive special education, or who qualify for free and reduced lunch. When no attendance data is displayed in a cell, data have been suppressed to safeguard student confidentiality, or to ensure that statistics based on a very small sample size are not interpreted as equally representative as those based on a sufficiently larger sample size. For more information on CSDE data suppression policies, please visit http://edsight.ct.gov/relatedreports/BDCRE%20Data%20Suppression%20Rules.pdf.

Discipline in schools is typically disproportionate, reactive and punitive. Evidence-based strategies that have been recently developed focus on shifting schools to a more proactive and positive approach by detecting warning signs and intervening early. This project evaluates the implementation of an evidence-based intervention to improve students' mindsets and feelings of school belonging. This grant-funded project was designed to enhance school capacity to implement a Tier 2 intervention, Student Engagement and Empowerment (SEE), to improve student attendance, behavior, and achievement, while simultaneously evaluating the effects of this intervention. The intervention and research project were individualized to fit existing school operations in the school district. A grant-funded coach supported delivery of SEE at each school for the duration of the 3-year grant. SEE was delivered by trained teachers in the classroom over the course of a seven-session curriculum. The overarching project goal was to scale up and simultaneously evaluate a Tier 2 intervention that could be sustained after completion of the grant. The originally proposed research procedures consisted of an evaluation of the effects of the SEE program on the outcomes of students at elevated risk for disciplinary action and school dropout. Outcome data was collected for at-risk students in classrooms delivering the SEE program, and a comparison sample of at-risk students in classrooms not delivering the SEE program. Researchers initially hypothesized that students receiving the program would evidence a greater sense of belonging to school, endorse greater growth mindset, have better attendance and fewer suspensions/expulsions and course failure, and have better behavioral outcomes than students in the comparison group.

Dataset for manuscript "A comprehensive framework for explainable cluster analysis".

This dataset contains student data collected for the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Specifically, we use a sample of 5,000 students randomly selected from the 35,943 Spanish students who took the PISA 2018 survey [1]. A total of 80 variables are selected.

The dataset contains two files: - A CSV file containing the student data to which an additional column, stu_original_order has been added as unique identifier. - An Excel file containing a description of all variables.

References [1] OECD, PISA 2018 Technical Report, 2020. URL https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/

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

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

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

The data files contain information about the preferences of bachelor 1 and 2 students obtained via a discrete choice experiment (12 choice tasks per respondent), demographic characteristics of the sample and population, experiences with free-riding, attitude towards teamwork, and a measure of individualism/collectivism. Students were presented a different grade weight before each choice task (i.e., 10%, 30%, or 100%). The data was collected from mid-June to mid-July 2021.

Access to the data is subject to the approval of a data sharing agreement due to the personal information contained in the dataset.

A summary of the publication can be found below: Reducing free-riding is an important challenge for educators who use group projects. In this study, we measure students’ preferences for group project characteristics and investigate if characteristics that better help to reduce free-riding become more important for students when stakes increase. We used a discrete choice experiment based on twelve choice tasks in which students chose between two group projects that differed on five characteristics of which each level had its own effect on free-riding. A different group project grade weight was presented before each choice task to manipulate how much there was at stake for students in the group project. Data of 257 student respondents were used in the analysis. Based on random parameter logit model estimates we find that students prefer (in order of importance) assignment based on schedule availability and motivation or self-selection (instead of random assignment), the use of one or two peer process evaluations (instead of zero), a small team size of three or two students (instead of four), a common grade (instead of a divided grade), and a discussion with the course coordinator without a sanction as a method to handle free-riding (instead of member expulsion). Furthermore, we find that the characteristic team formation approach becomes even more important (especially self-selection) when student stakes increase. Educators can use our findings to design group projects that better help to reduce free-riding by (1) avoiding random assignment as team formation approach, (2) using (one or two) peer process evaluations, and (3) creating small(er) teams.

Abstract

TIMSS measures trends in mathematics and science achievement at the fourth and eighth grades in participating countries around the world, as well as monitoring curricular implementation and identifying promising instructional practices. Conducted on a regular 4-year cycle, TIMSS has assessed mathematics and science in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007, with planning underway for 2011. TIMSS collects a rich array of background information to provide comparative perspectives on trends in achievement in the context of different educational systems, school organizational approaches, and instructional practices. To support and promote secondary analyses aimed at improving mathematics and science education at the fourth and eighth grades, the TIMSS 2007 international database makes available to researchers, analysts, and other users the data collected and processed by the TIMSS project. This database comprises student achievement data as well as student, teacher, school, and curricular background data for 59 countries and 8 benchmarking participants. Across both grades, the database includes data from 433,785 students, 46,770 teachers, 14,753 school principals, and the National Research Coordinators of each country. All participating countries gave the IEA permission to release their national data.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage

Analysis unit

Units of analysis in the study include documents, schools and individuals

Universe

The TIMSS target populations are all fourth and eighth graders in each participating country. The teachers in the TIMSS 2007 international database do not constitute representative samples of teachers in the participating countries. Rather, they are the teachers of nationally representative samples of students. Therefore, analyses with teacher data should be made with students as the units of analysis and reported in terms of students who are taught by teachers with a particular attribute. Teacher data are analyzed by linking the students to their teachers. The student-teacher linkage data files are used for this purpose.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The TIMSS target populations are all fourth and eighth graders in each participating country. To obtain accurate and representative samples, TIMSS used a two-stage sampling procedure whereby a random sample of schools is selected at the first stage and one or two intact fourth or eighth grade classes are sampled at the second stage. This is a very effective and efficient sampling approach, but the resulting student sample has a complex structure that must be taken into consideration when analyzing the data. In particular, sampling weights need to be applied and a re-sampling technique such as the jackknife employed to estimate sampling variances correctly.

In addition, TIMSS 2007 uses Item Response Theory (IRT) scaling to summarize student achievement on the assessment and to provide accurate measures of trends from previous assessments. The TIMSS IRT scaling approach used multiple imputation-or "plausible values"-methodology to obtain proficiency scores in mathematics and science for all students. Each student record in the TIMSS 2007 international database contains imputed scores in mathematics and science overall, as well as for each of the content domain subscales and cognitive domain subscales. Because each imputed score is a prediction based on limited information, it almost certainly includes some small amount of error. To allow analysts to incorporate this error into analyses of the TIMSS achievement data, the TIMSS database provides five separate imputed scores for each scale. Each analysis should be replicated five times, using a different plausible value each time, and the results combined into a single result that includes information on standard errors that incorporate both sampling and imputation error.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The study used the following questionnaires: Fourth Grade Student Questionnaire, Fourth Grade Teacher Questionnaire, Fourth Grade School Questionnaire, Eighth Grade Student Questionnaire, Eighth Grade Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire, Eighth Grade Science Teacher Questionnaire, and Eighth Grade School Questionnaire. Information on the variables obtained or derived from questions in the survey is available in the TIMSS 2007 user guide for the international database: Data Supplement3: Variables derived from the Student, Teacher, and School Questionnaire data.

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.

About this Dataset

educational student pan india data...here only sample i share you i have 20000 and more student mail id and contact no data. Hurry Up..!!!

Category

Education

Keywords

Education Pan india student data

Row Count

34

Price

$7.00

Overall attendance data include students in Districts 1-32 and 75 (Special Education). Students in District 79 (Alternative Schools & Programs), charter schools, home schooling, and home and hospital instruction are excluded. Pre-K data do not include NYC Early Education Centers or District Pre-K Centers; therefore, Pre-K data are limited to those who attend K-12 schools that offer Pre-K. Transfer schools are included in citywide, borough, and district counts but removed from school-level files. Attendance is attributed to the school the student attended at the time. If a student attends multiple schools in a school year, the student will contribute data towards multiple schools. Starting in 2020-21, the NYC DOE transitioned to NYSED's definition of chronic absenteeism. Students are considered chronically absent if they have an attendance of 90 percent or less (i.e. students who are absent 10 percent or more of the total days). In order to be included in chronic absenteeism calculations, students must be enrolled for at least 10 days (regardless of whether present or absent) and must have been present for at least 1 day. The NYSED chronic absenteeism definition is applied to all prior years in the report. School-level chronic absenteeism data reflect chronic absenteeism at a particular school. In order to eliminate double-counting students in chronic absenteeism counts, calculations at the district, borough, and citywide levels include all attendance data that contribute to the given geographic category. For example, if a student was chronically absent at one school but not at another, the student would only be counted once in the citywide calculation. For this reason, chronic absenteeism counts will not align across files. All demographic data are based on a student's most recent record in a given year. Students With Disabilities (SWD) data do not include Pre-K students since Pre-K students are screened for IEPs only at the parents' request. English language learner (ELL) data do not include Pre-K students since the New York State Education Department only begins administering assessments to be identified as an ELL in Kindergarten. Only grades PK-12 are shown, but calculations for "All Grades" also include students missing a grade level, so PK-12 may not add up to "All Grades". Data include students missing a gender, but are not shown due to small cell counts. Data for Asian students include Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders . Multi-racial and Native American students, as well as students missing ethnicity/race data are included in the "Other" ethnicity category. In order to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations on public reporting of education outcomes, rows with five or fewer students are suppressed, and have been replaced with an "s". Using total days of attendance as a proxy , rows with 900 or fewer total days are suppressed. In addition, other rows have been replaced with an "s" when they could reveal, through addition or subtraction, the underlying numbers that have been redacted. Chronic absenteeism values are suppressed, regardless of total days, if the number of students who contribute at least 20 days is five or fewer. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shift to remote learning in March 2020, 2019-20 attendance data was only available for September 2019 through March 13, 2020. Interactions data from the spring of 2020 are reported on a separate tab. Interactions were reported by schools during remote learning, from April 6 2020 through June 26 2020 (a total of 57 instructional days, excluding special professional development days of June 4 and June 9). Schools were required to indicate any student from their roster that did not have an interaction on a given day. Schools were able to define interactions in a way that made sense for their students and families. Definitions of an interaction included: • Student submission of an assignment or completion of an

Using longitudinal elementary school teacher and student data, we document that students have larger test score gains when their teachers experience improvements in the observable characteristics of their colleagues. Using within-school and within-teacher variation, we show that a teacher's students have larger achievement gains in math and reading when she has more effective colleagues (based on estimated value-added from an out-of-sample pre-period). Spillovers are strongest for less experienced teachers and persist over time, and historical peer quality explains away about 20 percent of the own-teacher effect, results that suggest peer learning. (JEL I21, J24, J45)

2015 NYC School Survey data for all schools.

To understand the perceptions of families, students, and teachers regarding their school. School leaders use feedback from the survey to reflect and make improvements to schools and programs. Also, results from the survey used to help measure school quality.

Each year, all parents, teachers, and students in grades 6-12 take the NYC School Survey. The survey is aligned to the DOE's Framework for Great Schools. It is designed to collect important information about each school's ability to support student success.

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

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

Student groups include:

Students experiencing homelessness

Students with disabilities

Students who qualify for free/reduced lunch

English learners

All high needs students

Non-high needs students

Students by race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino of any race, Black or African American, White, All other races)

Attendance rates are provided for each student group by district and for the state. Students who are considered high needs include students who are English language learners, who receive special education, or who qualify for free and reduced lunch.

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

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

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.

Student Enrollment reports the number of enrolled students, per grade.

Since the beginning of the 1960s, Statistics Sweden, in collaboration with various research institutions, has carried out follow-up surveys in the school system. These surveys have taken place within the framework of the IS project (Individual Statistics Project) at the University of Gothenburg and the UGU project (Evaluation through follow-up of students) at the University of Teacher Education in Stockholm, which since 1990 have been merged into a research project called 'Evaluation through Follow-up'. The follow-up surveys are part of the central evaluation of the school and are based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students.

Evaluation through follow-up (UGU) is one of the country's largest research databases in the field of education. UGU is part of the central evaluation of the school and is based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students. The longitudinal database contains information on nationally representative samples of school pupils from ten cohorts, born between 1948 and 2004. The sampling process was based on the student's birthday for the first two and on the school class for the other cohorts.

For each cohort, data of mainly two types are collected. School administrative data is collected annually by Statistics Sweden during the time that pupils are in the general school system (primary and secondary school), for most cohorts starting in compulsory school year 3. This information is provided by the school offices and, among other things, includes characteristics of school, class, special support, study choices and grades. Information obtained has varied somewhat, e.g. due to changes in curricula. A more detailed description of this data collection can be found in reports published by Statistics Sweden and linked to datasets for each cohort.

Survey data from the pupils is collected for the first time in compulsory school year 6 (for most cohorts). Questionnaire in survey in year 6 includes questions related to self-perception and interest in learning, attitudes to school, hobbies, school motivation and future plans. For some cohorts, questionnaire data are also collected in year 3 and year 9 in compulsory school and in upper secondary school.

Furthermore, results from various intelligence tests and standartized knowledge tests are included in the data collection year 6. The intelligence tests have been identical for all cohorts (except cohort born in 1987 from which questionnaire data were first collected in year 9). The intelligence test consists of a verbal, a spatial and an inductive test, each containing 40 tasks and specially designed for the UGU project. The verbal test is a vocabulary test of the opposite type. The spatial test is a so-called ‘sheet metal folding test’ and the inductive test are made up of series of numbers. The reliability of the test, intercorrelations and connection with school grades are reported by Svensson (1971).

For the first three cohorts (1948, 1953 and 1967), the standartized knowledge tests in year 6 consist of the standard tests in Swedish, mathematics and English that up to and including the beginning of the 1980s were offered to all pupils in compulsory school year 6. For the cohort 1972, specially prepared tests in reading and mathematics were used. The test in reading consists of 27 tasks and aimed to identify students with reading difficulties. The mathematics test, which was also offered for the fifth cohort, (1977) includes 19 assignments. After a changed version of the test, caused by the previously used test being judged to be somewhat too simple, has been used for the cohort born in 1982. Results on the mathematics test are not available for the 1987 cohort. The mathematics test was not offered to the students in the cohort in 1992, as the test did not seem to fully correspond with current curriculum intentions in mathematics. For further information, see the description of the dataset for each cohort.

For several of the samples, questionnaires were also collected from the students 'parents and teachers in year 6. The teacher questionnaire contains questions about the teacher, class size and composition, the teacher's assessments of the class' knowledge level, etc., school resources, working methods and parental involvement and questions about the existence of evaluations. The questionnaire for the guardians includes questions about the child's upbringing conditions, ambitions and wishes regarding the child's education, views on the school's objectives and the parents' own educational and professional situation.

The students are followed up even after they have left primary school. Among other things, data collection is done during the time they are in high school. Then school administrative data such as e.g. choice of upper secondary school line / program and grades after completing studies. For some of the cohorts, in addition to school administrative data, questionnaire data were also collected from the students.