Out of the OECD countries, Luxembourg was the country that spent the most on educational institutions per full-time student in 2020. On average, 23,000 U.S dollars were spent on primary education, nearly 27,000 U.S dollars on secondary education, and around 53,000 U.S dollars on tertiary education. The United States followed behind, with Norway in third. Meanwhile, the lowest spending was in Mexico.

Global Primary Education Expenditure by Country, 2023 Discover more data with ReportLinker!

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country Finland. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/The indicator "Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$" stands at 10.05 Thousand usd as of 12/31/2017. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes a decrease of -1.70 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is -1.70.The 3 year change in percent is -0.3421.The 5 year change in percent is -0.1836.The 10 year change in percent is 73.24.

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country France. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/

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.

This dataset explores Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary education, by function and state 2003 - 2004. NOTE: Excludes expenditures for state education agencies. "0" indicates none or less than $0.50. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 200304. (This table was prepared August 2006.) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_168.asp Accessed on 12 November 2007

This dataset shows school district expenditures. It is derived from US Census bureau's Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance data for year 2004. It breaks down spending per student by expenditure on staff salaries and benefits, monies spent on general administration and other support services. Source: http://www.census.gov/www/school04.html Note: Value of zero indicates no data

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country Norway. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/The indicator "Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$" stands at 13.19 Thousand usd as of 12/31/2017. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes a decrease of -0.6672 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is -0.6672.The 3 year change in percent is 3.52.The 5 year change in percent is 9.90.The 10 year change in percent is 130.52.

This dataset explores Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools, by state -- Selected years, 1959-60 through 2003-04 * Note - data is in unadjusted dollars http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_171.asp Accessed on 12 November 2007

Attitudes of students towards higher education. Topics: preference of selected statements: right of all qualified students to study vs. right only for very best students, admittance of all students to universities vs. right of universities to select, higher education free of charge vs. acceptability of student fees in combination with grants and loans; attitude towards the following statements on higher education institutions (HEIs): should provide more programmes for part time students, should promote activities to increase variety of social and cultural backgrounds of students, study programmes should focus on teaching specialized knowledge, study programmes should include generic competences; importance of each of the following purposes of higher education: provide students with skills to be successful on the labour market, enhance personal development, education for active citizenship; attitude towards selected statements regarding the choice of the institution where to study: choice on the basis of reputation of the institution and study programmes, choice on the basis of other factors (e.g. location, friends, cost, …), sufficient availability of information materials, need for quality reports on universities, need for performance rankings, involvement of students in quality reports and rankings; considerations to study abroad; importance of each of the following obstacles with regard to studying abroad: lack of information on study opportunities, lack of funds, difficulty to obtain recognition for periods spent abroad, different quality of education abroad, language barriers, lack of encouragement by home university; attitude towards the following statements: short study periods abroad are mostly recognised by home university, all study programmes should include short study periods abroad, most non-mobile students obtain ECTS credit points for studies completed at their institutions, most mobile students obtain ECTS credit points for studies abroad, possibility of work placements in private enterprises as part of study programme, importance for HEIs to foster innovation and entrepreneurial mindset among students and staff, provision of tailor-made study programmes for enterprises by HEIs, more involvement of enterprises in higher education; future plans after graduation. Demography: study institute; sex; age; country where upper secondary diploma was obtained; number of years in higher education; field of study; full time student; study status; obtainable degrees at institution. Additionally coded was: respondent ID; country; interviewer ID; language of the interview; date of interview; time of the beginning of the interview; duration of the interview; type of phone line; region. Einstellung von Studierenden zum Hochschulwesen. Ziele der Hochschulbildung. Kriterien der Studienortwahl. Auslandsstudium. Zusammenarbeit der Hochschule mit Unternehmen. Bachelor und Master. Themen: Einstellung zu einem Recht aller Abiturienten auf ein Studium oder nur der Allerbesten; Universitäten sollten ein Selektionsrecht haben; Akzeptanz von Studiengebühren; Zustimmung zu folgenden Aussagen (Skala): Hochschulen sollten mehr Programme für Teilzeitstudenten anbieten, Hochschulen sollten Studenten mit vielfältigem sozialen und kulturellen Hintergrund aufnehmen, Studienpläne sollten sich auf spezifisches Fachwissen oder auf die Vermittlung allgemeiner Kompetenzen konzentrieren; wichtigste Ziele der Hochschulbildung (Skala): Ausbildung für den Arbeitsmarkt, persönliche Entwicklung, Ausbildung zum aktiven Bürger; wichtigste Aspekte der Studienortwahl: erfolgt nach Ruf der Hochschule, nach Lage, in Hinblick auf Freunde und Kosten, unabhängige Berichte über die Qualität sowie Rankings über die Leistung von Universitäten dienen als Entscheidungshilfe, Mitarbeit von Studierenden bei der Erstellung von Qualitätsberichten und Rankings; beabsichtigtes Auslandsstudium; Hindernisse für ein Auslandsstudium (fehlende Informationen, Geldmangel, fehlende Möglichkeit der Leistungsanerkennung der bisherigen Studienzeit im Ausland, unterschiedliche Qualität der Bildung, Sprachbarrieren, keine Förderung durch Dozenten); Einstellung zum Auslandsstudium (Skala): Anerkennung kurzer Studienaufenthalte im Ausland durch die Heimatuniversität, Auslandstudium sollte Bestandteil eines jeden Studienplans sein, ECTS Credit Points für Kurse an eigener Hochschule und für Auslandsaufenthalte, Wunsch nach Praktika in Privatunternehmen als Teil des Studienplans, Wichtigkeit der universitären Förderung von Innovation und unternehmerischem Denken bei Studenten und Angestellten, Wunsch nach einem Angebot maßgeschneiderter Studienpläne für Unternehmen zur Förderung der Weiterleitung von Arbeitskräften; Unternehmen sollten stärker an Hochschulorganisation beteiligt sein; Zukunftspläne nach dem Abschluss des Studiums. Demographie: Einrichtung, an der der Befragte studiert; Geschlecht; Alter; Land, in dem Hochschulreife erlangt wurde; Studiendauer; Studienrichtung; Vollzeitstudent; Studienstatus; an der Universität vergebene Abschlüsse. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Befragten-ID; Land; Interviewer-ID; Interviewsprache; Interviewdatum; Interviewdauer (Interviewbeginn und Interviewende); Interviewmodus (Mobiltelefon oder Festnetz); Region. ProbabilityProbability WahrscheinlichkeitsauswahlProbability Face-to-face interview: Paper-and-pencil (PAPI)Interview.FaceToFace.PAPI Persönliches Interview : Papier-und-Bleistift (PAPI)Interview.FaceToFace.PAPI

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

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country Mongolia. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/The indicator "Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$" stands at 1.56 Thousand usd as of 12/31/2017, the lowest value since 12/31/2007. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes a decrease of -19.13 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is -19.13.The 3 year change in percent is -14.21.The 5 year change in percent is -30.24.The 10 year change in percent is -10.27.The Serie's long term average value is 1.75 Thousand usd. It's latest available value, on 12/31/2017, is 11.20 percent lower, compared to it's long term average value.The Serie's change in percent from it's minimum value, on 12/31/2004, to it's latest available value, on 12/31/2017, is +26.71%.The Serie's change in percent from it's maximum value, on 12/31/2012, to it's latest available value, on 12/31/2017, is -30.24%.

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.

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country Iceland. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/The indicator "Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$" stands at 13.17 Thousand usd as of 12/31/2017, the highest value at least since 12/31/1995, the period currently displayed. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes an increase of 12.65 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is 12.65.The 3 year change in percent is 23.86.The 5 year change in percent is 35.64.The 10 year change in percent is 51.71.

This dataset explores Early Care and Education Funding: Head Start Allocation and State-Funded Prekindergarten Participation. This data is state level and expresses the participation per state. Head Start and Early Head Start are comprehensive child development programs that serve children from birth to age 5, their families, and pregnant women. The overall goal of these programs is to increase the school readiness of young children in families earning low incomes. The Head Start program delivers comprehensive services including: education, health, nutrition, screening for developmental delays, and a variety of social services, if the family needs them. The program is designed to meet the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of children. This data is from Latest Data: Fiscal Year 2004 (Head Start) and School Year 2002-2003 (State Funded Prekindergarten). This data is from National Child Care Information Center. Refer to NCCIC Child Care Database for detailed state information (http://nccic.org/IMS/Results.asp). Compiled by: National Association of Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies (http://www.naccrra.org/randd/head_start/expenditure.php)

This dataset explores Achievement-level results in NAEP writing for eighth-grade public school students, by state: 1998, 2002, and 2007 Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998, 2002, and 2007 Writing Assessments.

Time series data for the statistic Initial government funding per pre-primary student, constant PPP$ and country Eritrea. Indicator Definition:Total general (local, regional and central, current and capital) initial government funding of education per student, which includes transfers paid (such as scholarships to students), but excludes transfers received, in this case international transfers to government for education (when foreign donors provide education sector budget support or other support integrated in the government budget). Calculation Method: Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure (current and capital) on a given level of education (primary, secondary, etc) minus international transfers to government for education, divided by the number of student enrolled at that level of education. This is then expressed at constant purchasing power parity (constant PPP$). Limitations: In some instances data on total government expenditure on education refers only to the Ministry of Education, excluding other ministries which may also spend a part of their budget on educational activities. There are also cases where it may not be possible to separate international transfers to government from general government expenditure on education, in which cases they have not been subtracted in the formula. For more information, consult the UNESCO Institute of Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/

Student survey: gender, age, time spent with parents, parental involvement in the school life of child, number of books in household. JeKI at elementary school, instrumental lessons at elementary school, period of instrumental lessons; current instrumental playing, current instrumental lessons, weekly music lessons at school. If participating in JeKi in elementary school: playing on JeKI instrument, reasons for instrumental playing, lessons on JeKi instrument, JeKi teacher, reasons for ending JeKi lessons, break from JeKi lessons, lessons on other instrument, different instrument, beginning of lessons, reasons for playing the other instrument, ending playing a third instrument, duration of playing a third instrument. If not participating in JeKi lessons: played instrument, lessons on instrument, duration of lessons, previous instrument played, duration of playing the previous instrument. Questions about music and other arts: singing in the choir, duration, joy and importance of listening to music and singing, hobbies, cultural activities in the last year, desire to play another instrument, which instrument. When instrumental lessons take place: longest played instruments, instrumental teacher, type of teaching, parental involvement in instrumental lessons, assessment of instrumental teacher, participation in music class at school. Pleasure in played instruments, company in practice, place of practice, playing in a music group, type of music played. Most frequently played instrument, frequency of playing, duration of practice, parental involvement in practice. Reasons for instrumental playing, assessment of one´s own musical abilities, way of practicing, behavior while practicing, ambition in practicing. Reasons for musical success, importance of different musical aspects, evaluation of one’s own musicality, goals in instrumental playing, dealing with distraction. Parent survey: gender of the child, participation of the child in instrumental lessons in private and at school, child’s instrument, musical activities of the family, common activities within the family, importance of musicality, cultural activities with the child, assessment of the child´s abilities and personality, importance of certain goals of education, participation in the child’s, importance of music in the family, satisfaction with the school performance of the child. Household size, number of children in household, number of older children living in household, type of housing, number of books in household, living together with other parent of child, employment of parents, employment relationship, occupational status, household income. Reasons for possible non-participation of the child in private instrumental lessons, exercise time of the child, frequency of playing the instrument, pleasure in practicing, satisfaction of the child with the instrument, frequency of support of the child in practice, ambition of the parents regarding the instrumental playing of the child, parent consultation by the child during instrument learning, parent supporting the child with instrumental learning, duration of weekly instrumental lessons, parental involvement in the child´s instrumental lessons, behavior of the instrument teacher, monthly fee for instrumental lessons, assessment of the fee, financing of the instrumental lessons, own instrument of the child, financing of the instrument. Demography: own age, country of birth mother / father / child, country of birth grandparents Germany, age of the child when moving to Germany, early musical support of the child, musical offer in the kindergarten, parents’ graduation, vocational training of the parents. Schülerbefragung: Geschlecht, Alter, Gemeinsame Zeit mit den Eltern, Anteilnahme der Eltern am schulischen Leben des Kindes, Anzahl der Bücher im Haushalt. JeKI an Grundschule, Instrumentalunterricht an Grundschule, Zeit des Instrumentalunterrichts; Instrumentalspielen momentan, Instrumentalunterricht momentan, Wochenstunden Musikunterricht im Schuljahr. Wenn Teilnahme an JeKi in Grundschule: Spielen auf JeKi Instrument, Gründe für Instrumentalspielen, Unterricht auf JeKi Instrument, JeKi Lehrer, Gründe für Abbruch des JeKi Unterrichts, Pause vom JeKi Unterricht, Unterricht auf anderem Instrument, anders Instrument, Beginn des Unterrichts, Gründe für Spielen des anderen Instruments, Beendigung Spielen eines dritten Instruments, Dauer Spielen eines dritten Instruments. Wenn nicht am JeKi Unterricht teilgenommen: gespieltes Instrument, Unterricht auf Instrument, Dauer des Unterrichts, früheres gespieltes Instrument, Dauer des Spielens des früheren Instruments. Fragen zu Musik und anderen Künsten: Singen im Chor, Dauer, Freude und Wichtigkeit von Musik hören und Singen, Hobbies, Kulturelle Aktivitäten im letzten Jahr, Lust noch ein Instrument zu spielen, welches Instrument. Wenn Instrumentalunterricht stattfindet: am längsten gespielte Instrumente, Instrumentallehrer, Art des Unterrichts, Anteilnahme der Eltern am Instrumentalunterricht, Beurteilung des Instrumentallehrers, Teilnahme an Musikklasse in der Schule. Gefallen an gespielten Instrumenten, Gesellschaft beim Üben, Ort des Übens, Spielen in einer Musikgruppe, Art der gespielten Musik. Am häufigsten gespieltes Instrument, Häufigkeit des Spielens, Dauer des Übens, Anteilnahme der Eltern am Üben. Gründe für Instrumentalspielen, Einschätzung der eigenen musikalischen Fähigkeiten, Art des Übens, Verhalten beim Üben, Ehrgeiz beim Üben. Gründe für musikalischen Erfolg, Wichtigkeit verschiedener musikalischer Aspekte, Bewertung der eigenen Musikalität, Ziele beim Instrumentalspielen, Verhalten bei Ablenkung. Elternbefragungen: Geschlecht des Kindes, Teilnahme des Kindes am Instrumentalunterricht in der Schule und privat, Instrument des Kindes, musikalische Aktivität der Familie, gemeinsame Aktivitäten innerhalb der Familie, Wichtigkeit von Musikalität, Kulturelle Aktivitäten mit dem Kind, Einschätzung der Fähigkeiten und der Persönlichkeit des Kindes, Wichtigkeit bestimmter Erziehungszielen, Anteilnahme am Leben des Kindes, Wichtigkeit von Musik in der Familie, Zufriedenheit mit den schulischen Leistungen des Kindes. Haushaltsgröße, Anzahl der Kinder im Haushalt, Anzahl älterer im Haushalt lebender Kinder, Wohnart, Anzahl Bücher im Haushalt, Zusammenleben mit anderem Elternteil des Kindes, Erwerbstätigkeit der Eltern, Beschäftigungsverhältnis, Berufliche Stellung, Haushaltseinkommen. Gründe für eventuelle nicht-Teilnahme des Kindes an privatem Instrumentalunterricht, Übungsdauer des Kindes, Häufigkeit des Instrumentalspielen des Kindes, Freude beim Üben, Zufriedenheit des Kindes mit dem Instrument, Häufigkeit der Unterstützung des Kindes beim Üben, Ehrgeiz der Eltern in Bezug auf das Instrumentalspielen des Kindes, Konsultation der Eltern durch das Kind beim Instrumentallernen, Unterstützung des Kindes durch die Eltern beim Instrumentallernen, wöchentliche Instrumentalunterrichtsdauer, Anteilnahme der Eltern am Instrumentalunterricht des Kindes, Verhalten des Instrumentallehrers, monatliche Gebühr für den Instrumentalunterricht, Beurteilung der Gebühr, Finanzierung des Instrumentalunterrichts, eigenes Instrument des Kindes, Finanzierung des Instruments. Demografie: eigenes Alter, Geburtsland Mutter / Vater / Kind, Geburtsland Großeltern Deutschland, Alter des Kindes bei Umzug nach Deutschland, musikalische Frühförderung des Kindes, musikalisches Angebot im Kindergarten, Schulabschluss der Eltern, berufliche Ausbildung der Eltern.

This dataset explores Percentage of eighth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP writing by race and state, USA, 2007 Notes: Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate. # Rounds to zero. Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacifi c Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Writing Assessment.