To collect feedback on their learning environment from families, students and teachers. Aids in facilitating the understanding of families perceptions, students, and teachers regarding their school. School leaders use feedback from the survey to reflect and make improvements to schools and programs. 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.

Context

It is a very basic data for beginners to implement their first ML models and predict a result.

Content

This data contains the marks of students from Mid-Semester and End-Semester and on the basis of that we have to predict whether the student will PASS or FAIL. Pass : 1 Fail : 0

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).

This Dataset contains State and Examination Center-wise Total Students Appeared, Students Scores Above 600 and 700, and Average and Median Marks by State and Examination Center, Including National Averages

Note: It has to be noted that the marks released by the NTA are centre-wise and hence the analysis of state-wise marks/averages is based on the state where the centre is located and not necessarily the domicile state of the student.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Gungun Shukla15

Released under CC0: Public Domain

Contents

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 contains the 100 level first semester results of 229 students in South East University in Nigeria. The average score for each student is computed based on 8 courses offered in that semester. The dataset contains both the CA and Exam scores respectively. The CA amd Exam score were subsequently conveerted to percentage

classwork

Dataset

This dataset was created by Harshita Dubey

Released under CC0: Public Domain

Contents

Dataset V: We analyzed student grades from the MEDSCI 203 course (Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland), to compare student grades in coursework assignments before (2018) and after incorporating interactive online resources using H5P in 2019. We undertook descriptive analyses using Excel and ran a t-test analysis on dataset V to determine the significance (p

Dataset Overview: This dataset pertains to the examination results of students who participated in a series of academic assessments at a fictitious educational institution named "University of Exampleville." The assessments were administered across various courses and academic levels, with a focus on evaluating students' performance in general management and domain-specific topics.

Columns: The dataset comprises 12 columns, each representing specific attributes and performance indicators of the students. These columns encompass information such as the students' names (which have been anonymized), their respective universities, academic program names (including BBA and MBA), specializations, the semester of the assessment, the type of examination domain (general management or domain-specific), general management scores (out of 50), domain-specific scores (out of 50), total scores (out of 100), student ranks, and percentiles.

Data Collection: The examination data was collected during a standardized assessment process conducted by the University of Exampleville. The exams were designed to assess students' knowledge and skills in general management and their chosen domain-specific subjects. It involved students from both BBA and MBA programs who were in their final year of study.

Data Format: The dataset is available in a structured format, typically as a CSV file. Each row represents a unique student's performance in the examination, while columns contain specific information about their results and academic details.

Data Usage: This dataset is valuable for analyzing and gaining insights into the academic performance of students pursuing BBA and MBA degrees. It can be used for various purposes, including statistical analysis, performance trend identification, program assessment, and comparison of scores across domains and specializations. Furthermore, it can be employed in predictive modeling or decision-making related to curriculum development and student support.

Data Quality: The dataset has undergone preprocessing and anonymization to protect the privacy of individual students. Nevertheless, it is essential to use the data responsibly and in compliance with relevant data protection regulations when conducting any analysis or research.

Data Format: The exam data is typically provided in a structured format, commonly as a CSV (Comma-Separated Values) file. Each row in the dataset represents a unique student's examination performance, and each column contains specific attributes and scores related to the examination. The CSV format allows for easy import and analysis using various data analysis tools and programming languages like Python, R, or spreadsheet software like Microsoft Excel.

Here's a column-wise description of the dataset:

Name OF THE STUDENT: The full name of the student who took the exam. (Anonymized)

UNIVERSITY: The university where the student is enrolled.

PROGRAM NAME: The name of the academic program in which the student is enrolled (BBA or MBA).

Specialization: If applicable, the specific area of specialization or major that the student has chosen within their program.

Semester: The semester or academic term in which the student took the exam.

Domain: Indicates whether the exam was divided into two parts: general management and domain-specific.

GENERAL MANAGEMENT SCORE (OUT of 50): The score obtained by the student in the general management part of the exam, out of a maximum possible score of 50.

Domain-Specific Score (Out of 50): The score obtained by the student in the domain-specific part of the exam, also out of a maximum possible score of 50.

TOTAL SCORE (OUT of 100): The total score obtained by adding the scores from the general management and domain-specific parts, out of a maximum possible score of 100.

In this project, we aim to analyze and gain insights into the performance of students based on various factors that influence their academic achievements. We have collected data related to students' demographic information, family background, and their exam scores in different subjects.

**********Key Objectives:*********

1. Performance Evaluation: Evaluate and understand the academic performance of students by analyzing their scores in various subjects.

2. Identifying Underlying Factors: Investigate factors that might contribute to variations in student performance, such as parental education, family size, and student attendance.

3. Visualizing Insights: Create data visualizations to present the findings effectively and intuitively.

Dataset Details:

• The dataset used in this analysis contains information about students, including their age, gender, parental education, lunch type, and test scores in subjects like mathematics, reading, and writing.

Analysis Highlights:

• We will perform a comprehensive analysis of the dataset, including data cleaning, exploration, and visualization to gain insights into various aspects of student performance.

• By employing statistical methods and machine learning techniques, we will determine the significant factors that affect student performance.

Why This Matters:

Understanding the factors that influence student performance is crucial for educators, policymakers, and parents. This analysis can help in making informed decisions to improve educational outcomes and provide support where it is most needed.

Acknowledgments:

We would like to express our gratitude to [mention any data sources or collaborators] for making this dataset available.

Please Note:

This project is meant for educational and analytical purposes. The dataset used is fictitious and does not represent any specific educational institution or individuals.

Historical Dataset of George W. Marks Elementary School is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (1987-2023),Total Classroom Teachers Trends Over Years (1987-2023),Distribution of Students By Grade Trends,Student-Teacher Ratio Comparison Over Years (1987-2023),Asian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1991-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1991-2023),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1991-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2013-2023),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (1991-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (1991-2023),Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (1999-2023),Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2011-2022),Math Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2010-2022),Science Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2021-2022),Overall School Rank Trends Over Years (2010-2022)

All distance learning participants (students, professors, instructors, mentors, tutors and the rest) would like to know how well the students have assimilated the study materials being taught. The analysis and assessment of the knowledge students have acquired over a semester are an integral part of the independent studies process at the most advanced universities worldwide. A formal test or exam during the semester would cause needless stress for students. To resolve this problem, the authors of this article have developed a Biometric and Intelligent Self-Assessment of Student Progress (BISASP) System. The obtained research results are comparable with the results from other similar studies. This article ends with two case studies to demonstrate practical operation of the BISASP System. The first case study analyses the interdependencies between microtremors, stress and student marks. The second case study compares the marks assigned to students during the e-self-assessment, prior to the e-test and during the e-test. The dependence, determined in the second case study, between the student marks scored for the real examination and the marks based on their self-evaluation is statistically significant (the significance >0.99%). The original contribution of this article, compared to the research results published earlier, is as follows: the BISASP System developed by the authors is superior to the traditional self-assessment systems due to the use of voice stress analysis and a special algorithm, which permits a more detailed analysis of the knowledge attained by a student.

The six data sets were created for an undergraduate course at the Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, held for second year students in the autumn semester. The course is taught both in Romanian and English with the same content and evaluation rules in both languages. The six data sets are the following: - FirstCaseStudy_RO_traditional_2019-2020.txt - contains data about the grades from the 2019-2020 academic year (when traditional face-to-face teaching method was used) for the Romanian language - FirstCaseStudy_RO_online_2020-2021.txt - contains data about the grades from the 2020-2021 academic year (when online teaching was used) for the Romanian language - SecondCaseStudy_EN_traditional_2019-2020.txt - contains data about the grades from the 2019-2020 academic year (when traditional face-to-face teaching method was used) for the English language - SecondCaseStudy_EN_online_2020-2021.txt - contains data about the grades from the 2020-2021 academic year (when online teaching was used) for the English language - ThirdCaseStudy_Both_traditional_2019-2020.txt - the concatenation of the two data sets for the 2019-2020 academic year (so all instances from FirstCaseStudy_RO_traditional_2019-2020 and SecondCaseStudy_EN_traditional_2019-2020 together) - ThirdCaseStudy_Both_online_2020-2021.txt - the concatenation of the two data sets for the 2020-2021 academic year (so all instances from FirstCaseStudy_RO_online_2020-2021 and SecondCaseStudy_EN_online_2020-2021 together)Instances from the data sets for the 2019-2020 academic year contain 12 attributes (in this order): - the grades received by the student for 7 laboratory assignments that were presented during the semester. For assignments that were not turned in a grade of 0 was given. Possible values are between 0 and 10 - the grades received by the student for 2 practical exams. If a student did not participate in a practical exam, de grade was 0. Possible values are between 0 and 10. - the number of seminar activities that the student had. Possible values are between 0 and 7. - the final grade the student received for the course. It is a value between 4 and 10. - the category of the final grade: - E for grades 10 or 9 - G for grades 8 or 7 - S for grades 6 or 5 - F for grade 4Instances from the data sets for the 2020-2021 academic year contain 10 attributes (in this order): - the grades received by the student for 7 laboratory assignments that were presented during the semester. For assignments that were not turned in a grade of 0 was given. Possible values are between 0 and 10 - a seminar bonus computed based on the number of seminar activities the student had during the semester, which was added to the final grade. Possible values are between 0 and 0.5. - the final grade the student received for the course. It is a value between 4 and 10. - the category of the final grade: - E for grades 10 or 9 - G for grades 8 or 7 - S for grades 6 or 5 - F for grade 4

This dataset tracks annual two or more races student percentage from 2013 to 2023 for Julius Marks Elementary School vs. Kentucky and Fayette County School District

While enrolment in tertiary education has increased dramatically over the past decades, many university-aged students do not enrol, nor do they expect to earn a university degree. While it is important to promote high expectations for further education, it is equally important to ensure that students’ expectations are well-aligned with their actual abilities. Grade Expectations: How Marks and Education Policies Shape Students' Ambitions reveals some of the factors that influence students’ thinking about further education. The report also suggests what teachers and education policy makers can do to ensure that more students have the skills, as well as the motivation, to succeed in higher education. In 2009, students in 21 PISA-participating countries and economies were asked about their expected educational attainment. An analysis of PISA data finds that students who expect to earn a university degree show significantly better performance in math and reading when compared to students who do not expect to earn such a university degree. However, performance is only one of the factors that determine expectations. On average across most countries and economies, girls and socio-economically advantaged students tend to hold more ambitious expectations than boys and disadvantaged students who perform just as well; and students with higher school marks are more likely to expect to earn a university degree – regardless of what those marks really measure.

This dataset shows all school level performance data used to create CPS School Report Cards for the 2011-2012 school year. Metrics are described as follows (also available for download at http://bit.ly/uhbzah): NDA indicates "No Data Available." SAFETY ICON: Student Perception/Safety category from 5 Essentials survey // SAFETY SCORE: Student Perception/Safety score from 5 Essentials survey // FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ICON: Involved Families category from 5 Essentials survey // FAMILY INVOLVEMENT SCORE: Involved Families score from 5 Essentials survey // ENVIRONMENT ICON: Supportive Environment category from 5 Essentials survey // ENVIRONMENT SCORE: Supportive Environment score from 5 Essentials survey // INSTRUCTION ICON: Ambitious Instruction category from 5 Essentials survey // INSTRUCTION SCORE: Ambitious Instruction score from 5 Essentials survey // LEADERS ICON: Effective Leaders category from 5 Essentials survey // LEADERS SCORE: Effective Leaders score from 5 Essentials survey // TEACHERS ICON: Collaborative Teachers category from 5 Essentials survey // TEACHERS SCORE: Collaborative Teachers score from 5 Essentials survey // PARENT ENGAGEMENT ICON: Parent Perception/Engagement category from parent survey // PARENT ENGAGEMENT SCORE: Parent Perception/Engagement score from parent survey // AVERAGE STUDENT ATTENDANCE: Average daily student attendance // RATE OF MISCONDUCTS (PER 100 STUDENTS): # of misconducts per 100 students//AVERAGE TEACHER ATTENDANCE: Average daily teacher attendance // INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM COMPLIANCE RATE: % of IEPs and 504 plans completed by due date // PK-2 LITERACY: % of students at benchmark on DIBELS or IDEL // PK-2 MATH: % of students at benchmark on mClass // GR3-5 GRADE LEVEL MATH: % of students at grade level, math, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 GRADE LEVEL READ: % of students at grade level, reading, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 KEEP PACE READ: % of students meeting growth targets, reading, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 KEEP PACE MATH: % of students meeting growth targets, math, grades 3-5 // GR6-8 GRADE LEVEL MATH: % of students at grade level, math, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 GRADE LEVEL READ: % of students at grade level, reading, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 KEEP PACE MATH: % of students meeting growth targets, math, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 KEEP PACE READ: % of students meeting growth targets, reading, grades 6-8 // GR-8 EXPLORE MATH: % of students at college readiness benchmark, math // GR-8 EXPLORE READ: % of students at college readiness benchmark, reading // ISAT EXCEEDING MATH: % of students exceeding on ISAT, math // ISAT EXCEEDING READ: % of students exceeding on ISAT, reading // ISAT VALUE ADD MATH: ISAT value-add value, math // ISAT VALUE ADD READ: ISAT value-add value, reading // ISAT VALUE ADD COLOR MATH: ISAT value-add color, math // ISAT VALUE ADD COLOR READ: ISAT value-add color, reading // STUDENTS TAKING ALGEBRA: % of students taking algebra // STUDENTS PASSING ALGEBRA: % of students passing algebra // 9TH GRADE EXPLORE (2009): Average EXPLORE score, 9th graders who tested in fall 2009 // 9TH GRADE EXPLORE (2010): Average EXPLORE score, 9th graders who tested in fall 2010 // 10TH GRADE PLAN (2009): Average PLAN score, 10th graders who tested in fall 2009 // 10TH GRADE PLAN (2010): Average PLAN score, 10th graders who tested in fall 2010 // NET CHANGE EXPLORE AND PLAN: Difference between Grade 9 Explore (2009) and Grade 10 Plan (2010) // 11TH GRADE AVERAGE ACT (2011): Average ACT score, 11th graders who tested in fall 2011 // NET CHANGE PLAN AND ACT: Difference between Grade 10 Plan (2009) and Grade 11 ACT (2011) // COLLEGE ELIGIBILITY: % of graduates eligible for a selective four-year college // GRADUATION RATE: % of students who have graduated within five years // COLLEGE/ ENROLLMENT RATE: % of students enrolled in college // COLLEGE ENROLLMENT (NUMBER OF STUDENTS): Total school enrollment // FRESHMAN ON TRACK RATE: Freshmen On-Track rate // RCDTS: Region County District Type Schools Code

Estimated average scores of 15-year-old students, reading, mathematics and science, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Canada, provinces and participating countries, Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC). This table is included in Section C: Elementary-secondary education: Student achievement of the Pan Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP). PCEIP draws from a wide variety of data sources to provide information on the school-age population, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education, transitions, education finance and labour market outcomes. The program presents indicators for all of Canada, the provinces, the territories, as well as selected international comparisons and comparisons over time. PCEIP is an ongoing initiative of the Canadian Education Statistics Council, a partnership between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada that provides a set of statistical measures on education systems in Canada.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Kashif Aziz

Released under Apache 2.0

Contents