government education report

Science Education Should Be National Priority; New Report Calls on Federal Government to Encourage Focusing Resources on High-Quality Science for All Students

WASHINGTON — The White House, with leadership from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, should encourage federal agencies, state and local governments, and others to focus resources on increasing the quality and accessibility of science education — from kindergarten through the end of a postsecondary degree (K-16) — says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future says science knowledge and scientific thinking are essential for democracy and the future STEM workforce, yet science education is not the national priority it needs to be. High-quality science education gives students the opportunity to carry out investigations, analyze data, draw conclusions, and communicate results — skills that are increasingly valuable in today’s workforce and society overall.

Only 22 percent of American high school graduates are proficient in science, and the average elementary classroom devotes less than 20 minutes per day to science; 69 percent of elementary teachers say they are not well prepared to teach science. States and local communities are not delivering high-quality science education in equal measure to all — students of color and students experiencing poverty are particularly unlikely to have high-quality science education throughout K-16.

“Far too many students, from kindergarten classrooms to college lecture halls, are learning science by reading about it in a textbook, by listening passively, or memorizing disconnected facts. They’re left asking, ‘what does science have to do with my life?’” said Margaret Honey, president and CEO of the New York Hall of Science and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “Our report proposes a vision for the future of science education in which all students experience the joy, beauty, and power of science in the classroom and throughout their lives.”

The report says communities need to provide time, materials, and resources to schools to support science education, and having a well-prepared, diverse teaching workforce across K-16 is essential. Students need clear pathways that support them through science education in college. Support from policymakers is necessary to support communities in making these changes.

“Far too many students, from kindergarten classrooms to college lecture halls, are learning science by reading about it in a textbook, by listening passively, or memorizing disconnected facts. They’re left asking, ‘what does science have to do with my life?’” — Margaret Honey

Elevating the Status of Science Education

The report says Congress should include science as an indicator of academic achievement in its next reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — and a system of assessments and indicators should provide information about the progress of schools, districts, and states. Accountability for science education, however, should not be based on single tests, but rather focus on students gaining conceptual understanding.

State departments of education should also act to include science in their accountability systems, supporting classroom instruction and tracking the availability of learning opportunities. National stakeholders in STEM education — including business, philanthropy, and nonprofits — should coordinate their advocacy, with particular attention to addressing disparities in opportunity.

Local and Regional Alliances for STEM

Leaders of K-12 school systems and postsecondary schools should form “Alliances for STEM Opportunity.” These alliances should develop evidence-based visions and plans for improving STEM education in their areas, with specific attention to addressing disparities and high-quality learning opportunities. The federal government, philanthropic organizations, and business and industry should provide funding to these alliances to support their work — first targeting communities where a significant number of students live in poverty.

Documenting Progress

The federal government should develop an annual “STEM Opportunity in the States” report card, to document K-16 STEM education in each state and territory, and track equity of opportunity. States should develop their own plans for providing equitable STEM education, including STEM opportunity maps that track disparities and progress made.

The study — undertaken by the Committee on Call to Action for Science Education — was sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and National Academy of Sciences’ W.K. Kellogg Fund. The National Academies are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.

Contact: Megan Lowry, Media Relations Officer Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138; e-mail [email protected]

Featured Report

Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future

Scientific thinking and understanding are essential for all people navigating the world, not just for scientists and other science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professionals. Knowledge of science and the practice of scientific thinking are essential components of a fully functioning democracy. Science is also crucial for the future STEM workforce and the pursuit of living wage jobs. Yet, science education is not the national priority it needs to be, and states and local communities are not yet delivering high quality, rigorous learning experiences in equal measure to all students from elementary school through higher education.

Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future articulates a vision for high quality science education, describes the gaps in opportunity that currently exist for many students, and outlines key priorities that need to be addressed in order to advance better, more equitable science education across grades K-16. This report makes recommendations for state and federal policy makers on ways to support equitable, productive pathways for all students to thrive and have opportunities to pursue careers that build on scientific skills and concepts. Call to Action for Science Education challenges the policy-making community at state and federal levels to acknowledge the importance of science, make science education a core national priority, and empower and give local communities the resources they must have to deliver a better, more equitable science education.

Read Full Description

• Executive Summary
• At a Glance
• Spotlight on Elementary School Science
• Spotlight on Higher Education

All Recent News

Articles Examine Impacts of Overturn of Roe v. Wade

NAM Names 11 Scholars in Diagnostic Excellence

Academy Members Receive Prestigious Shaw Prizes

Strategies to Govern AI Effectively

• Load More...

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Education (ED)

The Department of Education (ED) fosters educational excellence, and to ensures equal access to educational opportunity for all.

• Contact the Department of Education
• Student loan questions

Toll-free number

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)

Main address

Have a question.

Ask a real person any government-related question for free. They will get you the answer or let you know where to find it.

How much does the government spend on education? What percentage of people are college educated? How are kids doing in reading and math?

Table of Contents

What is the current state of education in the us.

How much does the US spend per student?

Public school spending per student

Average teacher salary.

How educated are Americans?

People with a bachelor's degree

Educational attainment by race and ethnicity.

How are kids doing in reading and math?

Proficiency in math and reading

What is the role of the government in education?

Spending on the education system

Agencies and elected officials.

The education system in America is made up of different public and private programs that cover preschool, all the way up to colleges and universities. These programs cater to many students in both urban and rural areas. Get data on how students are faring by grade and subject, college graduation rates, and what federal, state, and local governments spending per student. The information comes from various government agencies including the National Center for Education Statistics and Census Bureau.

During the 2019-2020 school year, there was $15,810 spent on K-12 public education for every student in the US.

Education spending per k-12 public school students has nearly doubled since the 1970s..

This estimate of spending on education is produced by the National Center for Education Statistics. Instruction accounts for most of the spending, though about a third includes support services including administration, maintenance, and transportation. Spending per student varies across states and school districts. During the 2019-2020 school year, New York spends the most per student ($29,597) and Idaho spends the least ($9,690).

During the 2021-2022 school year , the average public school teacher salary in the US was $66,397 .

Instruction is the largest category of public school spending, according to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics. Adjusting for inflation, average teacher pay is down since 2010.

In 2021 , 35% of people 25 and over had at least a bachelor’s degree.

Over the last decade women have become more educated than men..

Educational attainment is defined as the highest level of formal education a person has completed. The concept can be applied to a person, a demographic group, or a geographic area. Data on educational attainment is produced by the Census Bureau in multiple surveys, which may produce different data. Data from the American Community Survey is shown here to allow for geographic comparisons.

In 2021 , 61% of the Asian 25+ population had completed at least four years of college.

Educational attainment data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey allows for demographic comparisons across the US.

In 2022, proficiency in math for eighth graders was 26.5% .

Proficiency in reading in 8th grade was 30.8% ., based on a nationwide assessment, reading and math scores declined during the pandemic..

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative data that measures student achievement. NAEP is Congressionally mandated. Tests are given in a sample of schools based on student demographics in a given school district, state, or the US overall. Testing covers a variety of subjects, most frequently math, reading, science, and writing.

In fiscal year 2020, governments spent a combined total of $1.3 trillion on education.

That comes out to $4,010 per person..

USAFacts categorizes government budget data to allocate spending appropriately and to arrive at the estimate presented here. Most government spending on education occurs at the state and local levels rather than the federal.

Government revenue and expenditures are based on data from the Office of Management and Budget, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Each is published annually, although due to collection times, state and local government data are not as current as federal data. Thus, when combining federal, state, and local revenues and expenditures, the most recent year for a combined number may be delayed.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Recent Reports

College Athletics: Education Should Improve Its Title IX Enforcement Efforts

Financial Literacy: Better Outcome Reporting Could Facilitate Oversight of Programs for Older Adults and People with Disabilities

Higher Education: Employment Discrimination Case Referrals Between Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Could Be Improved

Bureau of Indian Education: Improved Oversight of Schools' COVID-19 Spending is Needed

Higher Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions Reported Extensive Facility and Digital Infrastructure Needs

Educación Superior: Las Instituciones de Servicio a Hispanos informaron de grandes necesidades de instalaciones e infraestructura digital

Open Recommendations

Federal student loans: education should enhance reporting on direct loan performance and risk, international military students: dod and state should assess vetting implementation and strengthen information sharing, head start: opportunities exist to better align resources with child poverty, k-12 education: dod has taken steps to support students affected by problematic sexual behaviors, but challenges remain, related pages.

Related Women and Gender in Public Policy

Related K-12 Education

Related Tribal and Native American Issues

Related College Access and Affordability

Related Homelessness

Related Helping Servicemembers Transition Back to Civilian Life

GAO Contacts

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. A lock ( ) or https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Keyboard Navigation

• Agriculture and Food Security
• Anti-Corruption
• Conflict Prevention and Stabilization
• Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance
• Economic Growth and Trade
• Environment, Energy, and Infrastructure
• Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment
• Global Health
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Innovation, Technology, and Research
• Water and Sanitation
• Burkina Faso
• Central Africa Regional
• Central African Republic
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• East Africa Regional
• Power Africa
• Republic of the Congo
• Sahel Regional
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Southern Africa Regional
• West Africa Regional
• Afghanistan
• Central Asia Regional
• Indo-Pacific
• Kyrgyz Republic
• Pacific Islands
• Philippines
• Regional Development Mission for Asia
• Timor-Leste
• Turkmenistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• North Macedonia
• Central America and Mexico Regional Program
• Dominican Republic
• Eastern and Southern Caribbean
• El Salvador
• Middle East Regional Platform
• West Bank and Gaza
• Dollars to Results
• Data Resources
• Strategy & Planning
• Budget & Spending
• Performance and Financial Reporting
• FY 2023 Agency Financial Report
• Records and Reports
• Budget Justification
• Our Commitment to Transparency
• Policy and Strategy
• How to Work with USAID
• Find a Funding Opportunity
• Organizations That Work With USAID
• Resources for Partners
• Get involved
• Business Forecast
• Safeguarding and Compliance
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
• Mission, Vision and Values
• News & Information
• Operational Policy (ADS)
• Organization
• Stay Connected
• USAID History
• Video Library
• Coordinators
• Nondiscrimination Notice and Civil Rights
• Collective Bargaining Agreements
• Disabilities Employment Program
• Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
• Reasonable Accommodations
• Urgent Hiring Needs
• Vacancy Announcements
• Search Search Search

US Government Strategy on International Basic Education, FY 2021

In FY 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to have detrimental effects on learners and education systems in our partner countries, including by putting 24 million additional students at risk of dropping out of school, 10 million more girls at risk of early marriage, and 9 million additional children at risk of child labor.1 Global learning poverty, a measure of children unable to read and understand a simple passage by age 10, has also increased sharply in the wake of the most significant global shock to education and learning in a century.

The USG recognizes that it is urgent to act now and act together. In a 2021 report on the USG’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden emphasized the importance of this moment and of the role of U.S. education assistance: “Building back from the COVID-19 pandemic provides us with the opportunity to reimagine the systems that serve our students, with resourcefulness, resilience, and creativity. The United States is ready to lead this effort.”

The goals of the U.S. Government Strategy on International Basic Education remain relevant to the rapidly changing global landscape that is negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and violent conflicts. In order to address learning loss caused by the pandemic, we must focus on improving learning outcomes. We must also continue to expand access to quality basic education for all, particularly marginalized and vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of not returning to school. Together with partner country governments, civil society, and international and local stakeholders, the USG is building on our investments in foundational learning to reach the most marginalized, strengthen resilience in education systems, and equip the next generation with the skills needed for lifelong success. We are grateful for the support of Congress in pursuing these important objectives.

While much work remains, USG departments and agencies continue to deliver highly effective education assistance and are making significant progress in expanding the reach of U.S. programs. In FY 2021, we collectively reached more than 33.4 million learners in 73 countries through programs designed to improve measurable learning outcomes and expand access to high-quality education for all, an increase of 8 million learners from FY 2020.

The challenge before us is monumental, and no single intervention, policy change, investment, approach or method alone is sufficient. The USG is committed to building on our progress and working in partnership toward a world where education systems in partner countries enable all individuals to acquire the education and skills needed to reach their full potential.

Reports to Congress

Every year Congress asks the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to submit a series of reports on various matters of concern. In an effort to provide a maximum of transparency to the general public, these reports are now being made available at this web site.

Related Reports

Development and humanitarian assistance accounts for mental health and psychosocial support programming.

• September 6, 2023

US Government Strategy on International Basic Education, FY 2022

• August 14, 2023

USAID’s Tracking of Funding for Children and Youth

• April 18, 2023

Report to Congress on USAID's Youth in Development Policy

• November 14, 2022

Share This Page

What New School Spending Data Show About a Coming Fiscal Cliff

• Share article

Schools stand to lose a significant chunk of revenue when federal COVID-relief aid expires.

That’s one of the takeaways from a new batch of federal data illustrating the money schools received (revenues) and the money they invested (expenditures) during the 2021-22 school year—the second full one after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The data come from the results of the Common Core of Data National Public Education Financial Survey , which annually collects data from school districts nationwide.

The numbers, published on May 7 by the National Center for Education Statistics , a research arm of the U.S. Department of Education, lag present-day conditions by two school years .

Still, they offer a snapshot of America’s investments in public school during an especially tumultuous period, when students nationwide had generally returned to school buildings full time, and academic recovery and related challenges such as chronic absenteeism were proving especially daunting.

On average, America’s K-12 schools spent $15,591 per student, up nearly $800 compared with two school years earlier when adjusted for inflation.

Those figure perennially vary from state to state. In Utah, schools spent roughly $9,500 per child on average, while the comparable figure in New York was more than $29,000.

Schools in states including California, Louisiana, and North Carolina spent between 6 and 7.5 percent more per student in 2021-22 than they did the previous year. By contrast, spending per pupil dropped slightly more than 4 percent in states including Maine, Montana, and Wyoming.

The new data also preview challenges school districts are already bracing for in the coming months and years.

The emergency aid that drove the federal government’s biggest-ever single-year contribution to education funding is set to expire in just four months.

Some states are already tightening investments in anticipation of less revenue coming in. Districts in many states are pondering teacher layoffs and building closures .

Here are a few key takeaways from the latest batch of data.

Federal funding rose during the pandemic—but state and local funding went down.

It’s no surprise to learn that the share of education funding that came from the federal government increased significantly during the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, Congress approved close to $200 billion in emergency aid for public schools .

That translated to the federal government contributing 13.7 percent of all the funding K-12 schools received in the 2021-22 school year. In previous non-COVID years, the federal share typically hovered around 8 to 10 percent .

As ever, the overwhelming majority of funding for K-12 schools comes from state budget allocations and local property taxes, among other state and local sources.

However, state revenues for K-12 schools declined 2.6 percent from the 2020-21 school year to the 2021-22 school year when adjusted for inflation, while local revenues declined 2 percent over the same period, according to the new data.

Schools spent billions of COVID-relief dollars soon after they got them.

ESSER dollars—more than $38 billion—represented slightly less than 5 percent of all the money K-12 schools spent in the 2021-22 school year.

During that time, schools were working through allocations from the set of ESSER II funds Congress appropriated in December 2020 and beginning to spend the largeest set of COVID-relief funds, ESSER III, approved in March 2021.

These data show that districts collectively spent roughly 20 percent of the federal government’s overall ESSER investment during the 2021-22 school year. They spent another $24 billion in ESSER funds the previous school year . The majority of ESSER spending took place after fall 2022.

Some districts are still finishing up their ESSER spending, even as the Sept. 30 deadline looms to commit funds to particular expenses. Districts have until Jan. 31, 2025, to actually spend the money, and the U.S. Department of Education may grant deadline extensions for school districts to spend funds they’ve already committed to contract expenses.

Costs of food and bus services are rising precipitously.

Virtually everything got more expensive during the pandemic, thanks to inflation. But even adjusting for inflation, some costs grew more rapidly than others. Between 2020-21 and 2021-22, schools saw:

• a 21.3 percent increase in the cost of food service.
• a 14.5 percent increase in the cost of school transportation.
• a 9.5 percent increase in the cost of “enterprise services” that operate at least partially on user fees, like school bookstores or certain after-school activities.

Supply-chain issues and pandemic-era precautions likely contributed to increased costs for food and buses.

Fuel costs during this period were at record highs, too, in part because of the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Transportation has also gotten more expensive for districts investing in electric buses , which some states are mandating despite their higher upfront costs than traditional diesel buses.

The majority of funding for K-12 schools pays for people.

Out of $767 billion spent on K-12 education from all sources combined during the 2021-22 school year, $595 billion went to compensation for school staff. Salaries and wages accounted for $416 billion, and benefits like health-care coverage and pensions cost another $178.3 billion.

Those costs are rising for districts in part because of the labor market. Workers have more leverage to demand higher wages or seek employment outside the public sector.

Similarly, the bulk of America’s K-12 investment in the 2021-22 school year went to instructional expenses. Those items accounted for slightly less than 60 percent of all school district spending. The next largest category was operations and maintenance, with 9 percent.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden Announces New Actions to Advance Racial and Educational Equity on 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of   Education

President Biden believes every student deserves access to a high-quality education that prepares them to be the next generation of leaders. Today, on the 70 th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) decision, which outlawed racially segregated schools – deeming them unequal and unconstitutional – the Biden-Harris Administration highlights new actions with the release of additional funding and resources to support school diversity and advance the goal that all students have access to a world-class education.

Research shows that racial achievement gaps are strongly associated with school segregation, in turn because schools with high concentrations of Black and Latino students receive fewer resources. The desegregation of schools that followed Brown led to a 30 percent increase in graduation rates for Black students and a 22 percent increase for Latino students. As school districts were released from court-ordered desegregation, research shows that in the 1960s and 1970s, school integration increased rapidly, but that trend has reversed in the past two decades when both racial and economic segregation increased . For example, segregation between white and Black students is up 64 percent since 1988, while segregation by economic status has grown by 50 percent since 1991. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s State of School Diversity Report , racially and socioeconomically isolated schools often lack critical resources and learning experiences and opportunities that prepare students for college and career success. The Department of Education report found that three in five Black and Latino students and two in five American Indian/Alaska Native students attend schools where at least 75% of students are students of color and 42% of white students attend schools where students of color make up less than 25% of the population. 

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring the educational success of every child, and to address racial segregation in our schools that leads to worse educational outcomes for children, including through investments in local efforts to increase diversity and equal opportunity. The Administration is focused on academic acceleration and has made record levels of investment in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to help improve opportunity for all. This includes supporting districts as they work to strengthen and diversify the education profession, enrich educational experiences, and improve school climate and conditions for robust learning.

New Actions to Advance Racial and Educational Equity

To advance racial and educational equity and continue the work of Brown to support educational opportunity for all students, the Biden-Harris Administration announced the following new actions today:

• New Magnet School Grants. The Department of Education’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) will invest $20 million in new awards for school districts in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas to establish magnet programs designed to further desegregate public schools by attracting students from different social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. The President’s 2025 budget request includes $139 million for MSAP and $10 million to continue investments in the Fostering Diverse Schools program.
• Establishing a new technical assistance center to help states and school districts provide more equitable and adequate approaches to school funding. The U.S. Department of Education announced a new Technical Assistance Center on Fiscal Equity as part of the Comprehensive Centers Program. The Center on Fiscal Equity will provide capacity-building services to support states and school districts build equitable and adequate resource allocation strategies, improve the quality and transparency of fiscal data, and prioritize supports for students and communities with the greatest need.
• New Data on Equal Access to Math and Science Courses. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is releasing a new Civil Rights Data Collection report highlighting students’ access to and enrollment in mathematics, science, and computer science courses and academic programs, drawing from information in the 2020-21 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The report reflects stark continuing racial inequities in access to math, science, and computer science courses for students in high schools with high concentrations of Black and Latino students. 
• Preserving African American History. To further advance the President’s Executive Order on Promoting the Arts, the Humanities, and Museum and Library Services, the Administration is launching an interagency process to develop new actions by the Federal Government to preserve African American history – including preserving historic sites, protecting and increasing access to literature, and ensuring the public, including students, has continuing access to resources. This effort will bolster African American history and culture as integral, indelible parts of American history.

Investing in Underserved Schools

• Under the American Rescue Plan, the nation’s schools received $130 billion in funding – the most in our Nation’s history – with a focus on undeserved schools . The American Rescue Plan also included new requirements that have driven nearly $800 million in State additional education funding, above and beyond the federal investment, to the most underserved school by protecting schools with high rates of poverty from reductions in State and local education funding.
• To date, the Biden-Harris Administration has secured nearly $2 billion in additional Title I funding to support our schools with the highest need, for a record $18.4 billion in annual funding.
• The Biden-Harris Administration has also increased funding for Full-Service Community Schools five-fold, from $30 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to $150 million in FY 2024 so that underserved schools, including those that serve a majority of students of color, have the additional resources they need to help deliver more services to students and their families, such as health care, housing, and child care, to close resource and opportunity gaps.

Increasing Teacher Diversity

Research indicates that educator diversity can improve student achievement and help close achievement gaps. For example, one study found that Black students randomly assigned to at least one Black teacher in grades K-3 were nearly 19% more likely to enroll in college than their same-school, same-race peers.

• The Administration is prioritizing efforts to increase educator diversity across 15 competitive grant programs that support teacher preparation, development, recruitment, and retention. These programs awarded nearly $450 million to 263 grantees, 92 percent of which were to grantees that addressed specific priorities related to educator diversity.
• The Administration secured and awarded a total of more than $23 million in first-time ever funding for the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of Excellence Grant program which provides grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) for teacher preparation programs to increase the number of well-prepared teachers, including teachers of color and multilingual educators.

Strengthening School Diversity

• During this Administration, the Department of Education is investing more than $300 million in programs that increase school diversity This includes increased investment in the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP), which aims to reduce racial isolation, including by creating highly effective schools, and the creation of the Fostering Diverse Schools Demonstration Program (FDS), a new initiative to increase school socioeconomic diversity, which awarded more than $14 million in new grants.
• In August 2023 after the Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, the Department of Education released a Dear Colleague Letter on Race and School Programming to guide schools on lawful programs to promote racially inclusive school communities and, along with the Department of Justice, a Dear Colleague Letter and a Questions and Answers Resource to help colleges and universities understand the Supreme Court’s decision as they continue to pursue campuses that are racially diverse and that include students with a range of viewpoints, talents, backgrounds, and experiences. The Department of Education published a resource summarizing specific guidance describing Federal legal obligations to ensure that all students have equal access to education regardless of race, color, or national origin.
• The Department of Education issued a new rule requiring, among other things, many Charter School Program applicants to assure that proposed charter schools would not negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the communities in which charters are to be located.

Closing the School Readiness Gap

Because of the legacy of discrimination, Black children start school on average nearly seven months behind their white peers in reading. One study finds that one year of universal high-quality pre-K could eliminate most of that gap. Others indicate that students who go to preschool are nearly 50% more likely to finish high school and go on to a college degree. Each of the President’s budgets have included proposals that would provide preschool to every four-year-old in the country. In addition:

• President Biden has secured an additional $1.5 billion for Head Start and nearly a 50% increase in funding for the Child Care & Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program, which helps low-income families afford child care. Approximately 30% of children and families receiving high-quality Head Start services are Black and close to 40% of families benefiting from CCBDG are Black. 
• The American Rescue Plan provided $24 billion to stabilize child care. Over 44% of programs that received assistance were owned or operated by people of color and 53% of providers receiving stabilization funds were operating in the most racially diverse counties.
• The Department of Education released guidance on how districts can leverage the increases the President has secured for Title I to expand access to high-quality preschool services, including through partnerships with Head Start programs. This is the first Department of Education preschool guidance in more than a decade.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

24 May, 2024 | 2:53 PM IST

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Screen Reader Access

Current Size: 100%

• Fundamental Rights
• Directive Principles of State Policy
• Fundamental Duties
• Rural & Urban Local Bodies
• Scheduled & Tribal Areas
• Centre-State Relations
• Organisation Chart
• School Education and Literacy
• Citizen's Charter
• Policy Initiatives
• Acts And Rules
• Telephone Directory
• Parking Label Application
• Who's Who
• School Education & Literacy
• Higher Education
• Documents & Reports
• School Education
• Expenditure on Education
• Miscellaneous
• School Education And Literacy
• National Boards
• Private National Boards
• International Boards
• YouTube Channel
• Photo Gallery
• School Education Dashboard
• Higher Education Dashboard

Annual Report 2022-2023 - MoE (English)

• Constitutional Provision
• Allocation of Business Rules
• Advisory Bodies
• Government Services

Departments

Institutions.

• Covid-19 Campaign
• Archived Photo Gallery
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Hyperlink Policy
• Related Link
• Accessibility Statement
• Web Analytics
• Web Information Manager
• National Portal
• Public Grievances

Content of this website is owned and managed by D/o Higher Education, Ministry of Education. This site is designed, developed, hosted and maintained by National Informatics Centre (NIC), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India. Copyright 2021. All Rights Reserved.

Follow us on:

Supports:    Firefox 2.0+    Google Chrome 6.0+    Internet Explorer 8.0+    Safari 4.0+

• Media and Speeches
• Ongoing reporting
• Report on Government Services

Report on Government Services 2022

• B Child care, education and training

Part B, section 4: LATEST UPDATE: 7 JUNE 2022

4 School education

LATEST UPDATE 7 JUNE 2022:

Indicator results for:

• Attendance and participation by selected equity group, 2021 data
• Attendance, 2021 data
• Retention, 2021 data

Context on:

• Size and scope, 2021 data

Impact of COVID-19 on data for the School education section

COVID-19 may affect data in this Report in a number of ways. This includes in respect of actual performance (that is, the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery during 2020 and 2021 which is reflected in the data results), and the collection and processing of data (that is, the ability of data providers to undertake data collection and process results for inclusion in the Report).

For the School education section, there has been some impact on the data that is attributable to COVID-19 but this has not affected the comparability of any indicators. These impacts are primarily due to the social distancing restrictions implemented from March 2020 and associated economic downturn, which may have affected 2020 data for the post school destination indicator.

This section focuses on performance information for government-funded school education in Australia.

The Indicator Results tab uses data from the data tables to provide information on the performance for each indicator in the Indicator Framework. The same data are also available in CSV format.

Skip to downloadable School education data tables

• Guide: How to find what you need in RoGS – modified dynamic online presentation (PDF - 259 Kb)
• Indicator framework
• Indicator results
• Indigenous data
• Key terms and references

Objectives for school education

Australian schooling aims for all young Australians to become successful lifelong learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed members of the community positioning them to transition to further study and/or work and successful lives. It aims for students to improve academic achievement and excel by international standards.

To meet this vision, the school education system aims to:

• engage all students and promote student participation
• deliver high quality teaching of a world-class curriculum.

Governments aim for school education services to meet these objectives in an equitable and efficient manner.

The vision and objectives align with the educational goals in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (EC 2019) and the National School Reform Agreement (NSRA) (COAG 2018).

Expand all Collapse all

Service overview

Schooling aims to provide education for all young people. The structure of school education varies across states and territories.

Compulsory school education

Entry to school education is compulsory for all children in all states and territories, although the child age entry requirements vary by jurisdiction (ABS 2021). In 2020, minimum starting ages generally restrict enrolment to children aged between four-and-a-half and five years at the beginning of the year (ABS 2021). (See section 3 , for more details.)

National mandatory requirements for schooling — as agreed in the National Youth Participation Requirement (NYPR) — came into effect through relevant State and Territory government legislation in 2010. Under the NYPR, all young people must participate in schooling until they complete year 10; and if they have completed year 10, in full time education, training or employment (or combination of these) until 17 years of age (COAG 2009). Some State and Territory governments have extended these requirements for their jurisdiction.

Type and level of school education

Schools are the institutions within which organised school education takes place (see the 'Key terms and references' tab for a definition of ‘school’) and are differentiated by the type and level of education they provide:

• Primary schools provide education from the first year of primary school — known as the ‘foundation year’ in the Australian Curriculum (see the 'Key terms and references' tab for the naming conventions used in each state and territory). Primary school education extends to year 6 (year 7 in SA until 2022 when it will be high school). (Prior to 2015, primary school education also extended to year 7 in Queensland and WA.)
• Secondary schools provide education from the end of primary school to year 12
• Special schools provide education for students that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics before enrolment: mental or physical disability or impairment; slow learning ability; social or emotional problems; or in custody, on remand or in hospital (ABS 2021).

Affiliation, ownership and management

Schools can also be differentiated by their affiliation, ownership and management, which are presented for two broad categories:

• Government schools are owned and managed by State and Territory governments
• Non-government schools , including Catholic and Independent schools, are owned and managed by non-government establishments.

Roles and responsibilities

State and Territory governments are responsible for ensuring the delivery and regulation of schooling to all children of school age in their jurisdiction. State and Territory governments provide most of the school education funding in Australia, which is administered under their own legislation. They determine curricula, register schools, regulate school activities and are directly responsible for the administration of government schools. They also provide support services used by both government and non-government schools. Non-government schools operate under conditions determined by State and Territory government registration authorities.

From 1 January 2018 the Australian Government introduced the Quality Schools Package replacing the Students First funding model which had been in effect since 1 January 2014. States and territories will also contribute funding under the Quality schools Package. More information on these funding arrangements can be found under '6a. Efficiency' on the 'Indicator results' tab.

The Australian Government and State and Territory governments work together to progress and implement national policy priorities, such as: a national curriculum; national statistics and reporting; national testing; and, teaching standards (PM&C 2014).

Nationally in 2019-20, government recurrent expenditure on school education was $70.6 billion, a 5.9 per cent real increase from 2018-19 (table 4A.10). State and Territory governments provided the majority of funding (68.3 per cent) (figure 4.1).

Government schools accounted for $52.6 billion (74.5 per cent), with State and Territory governments the major funding source ($44.2 billion, or 83.9 per cent of government schools’ funding). Non-government schools accounted for $18.0 billion (25.5 per cent), with the Australian Government the major funding source ($13.9 billion, or 77.4 per cent of non-government schools funding) (table 4A.10).

The share of government funding to government and non-government schools varies across jurisdictions and over time according to jurisdictional approaches to funding schools (see '6a. Efficiency' on the 'Indicator results' tab) and is affected by the characteristics of school structures and the student body in each state and territory.

This Report presents expenditure related to government funding only, not to the full cost to the community of providing school education. Caution should be taken when comparing expenditure data for government and non-government schools, because governments provide only part of school funding. Governments provided 62.2 per cent of non-government school funding in 2020, with the remaining 37.8 per cent sourced from private fees and fund raising (Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment unpublished).

Size and scope

In 2021, there were 9581 schools in Australia (6256 primary schools, 1442 secondary schools, 1374 combined schools, and 509 special schools) (table 4A.1). The majority of schools were government owned and managed (69.8 per cent) (table 4A.1).

Settlement patterns (population dispersion), the age distribution of the population and educational policy influence the distribution of schools by size and level in different jurisdictions. Data on school size and level are available from Schools Australia, 2021 (ABS 2022).

Student body

There were 4.0 million full time equivalent (FTE) students enrolled in school nationally in 2021 (table 4A.3). Whilst the majority of students are full time, there were 10 978 part time students in 2021 (predominantly in secondary schools) (ABS 2022).

• Government schools had 2.6 million FTE students enrolled (65.0 per cent of all FTE students). This proportion has decreased from 65.6 per cent in 2020 and is the lowest in the last 10 years of data reported (table 4A.3).
• Non-government schools had 1.4 million FTE students enrolled (35.0 per cent of all FTE students).
• The proportion of students enrolled in government schools is higher for primary schools than secondary schools (table 4A.3).

A higher proportion of FTE students were enrolled in primary schools (56.3 per cent) than in secondary schools (43.7 per cent) (table 4A.3). NT and SA have the highest proportions of FTE students enrolled in primary school education (59.9 per cent and 59.6 per cent respectively). SA is the only jurisdiction that still includes year 7 in primary school.

The enrolment rate is close to 100 per cent for Australian children aged 15 years (consistent with requirements under the NYPR), but decreases as ages increase. Nationally in 2021, 98.1 per cent of Australian children aged 15 years were enrolled at school, declining to 92.8 per cent of 16 year olds and 82.6 per cent of 17 year olds. Data are available for 15–19 year olds by single year of age and totals in table 4A.4.

Nationally, government schools had a higher proportion of students from selected equity groups than non-government schools, including for:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students — 7.9 per cent of government school students and 3.0 per cent of non-government school students in 2021 (table 4A.5)
• students from a low socio-educational background — 30.8 per cent of government school students and 12.6 per cent of non-government school students in 2020 (table 4A.6)
• geographically remote and very remote students — 2.3 per cent of government school students and 1.0 per cent of non-government school students in 2020 (table 4A.8).

For students with disability, 20.8 per cent, 19.1 per cent, and 19.6 per cent of students at government, Catholic, and independent schools, respectively, required an education adjustment due to disability (table 4A.7). Data by level of adjustment are in table 4A.7.

School and Vocational Education and Training (VET)

School-aged people may participate in VET by either participating in ‘VET in Schools’, or (see section 5 ) remain engaged in education through a Registered Training Organisation. Nationally in 2020, there were 241 200 VET in Schools students (NCVER 2020). Overall, 392 100 people aged 15–19 years successfully completed at least one unit of competency as part of a VET qualification at the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Certificate II level or above (at a school or Registered Training Organisation) (table 4A.9).

The performance indicator framework provides information on equity, efficiency and effectiveness, and distinguishes the outputs and outcomes of School education.

The performance indicator framework shows which data are complete and comparable in this Report. For data that are not considered directly comparable, text includes relevant caveats and supporting commentary. Section 1 discusses data comparability and completeness from a Report-wide perspective. In addition to the contextual information for this service area (see Context tab), the Report’s statistical context ( Section 2 ) contains data that may assist in interpreting the performance indicators presented in this section.

Improvements to performance reporting for School education are ongoing and include identifying data sources to fill gaps in reporting for performance indicators and measures, and improving the comparability and completeness of data.

Outputs are the services delivered (while outcomes are the impact of these services on the status of an individual or group) (see section 1). Output information is also critical for equitable, efficient and effective management of government services.

Outcomes are the impact of services on the status of an individual or group (see section 1).

An overview of the School education services performance indicator results are presented. Different delivery contexts, locations and types of clients can affect the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of school education services.

Information to assist the interpretation of these data can be found with the indicators below and all data (footnotes and data sources) are available for download from Download supporting material . Data tables are identified by a ‘4A’ prefix (for example, table 4A.1).

All data are available for download as an excel spreadsheet and as a CSV dataset — refer to Download supporting material . Specific data used in figures can be downloaded by clicking in the figure area, navigating to the bottom of the visualisation to the grey toolbar, clicking on the 'Download' icon and selecting 'Data' from the menu. Selecting 'PDF' or 'Powerpoint' from the 'Download' menu will download a static view of the performance indicator results.

1. Attendance by selected equity group

‘Attendance by selected equity group’ is an indicator of governments’ objective for school education services to be provided in an equitable manner.

‘Attendance by selected equity group’ compares the attendance rate of those in the selected equity group (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students in remote/very remote areas) with the attendance rate of those outside the selected equity group (non‑Indigenous students, students in major cities and regional areas).

Similar rates of attendance for those within and outside the selected equity groups indicates equity of access.

The student attendance rate is the number of actual full time equivalent student days attended by full time students as a percentage of the total number of possible student attendance days attended over the period.

Nationally in 2021, attendance rates across years 1–10 decreased as remoteness increased, except for NSW and Tasmania where there were higher rates for very remote students than remote students, with the decrease greater for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students than for non-Indigenous students (figure 4.2a). This pattern was similar for government and non-government schools (table 4A.21).

Nationally in 2021, non‑Indigenous students in all schools had higher attendance rates than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students across all year levels in all jurisdictions. This pattern was similar for government and non‑government schools (figure 4.2b and tables 4A.18-21).

The student attendance level is the proportion of full time students whose attendance rate is greater than or equal to 90 per cent over the period. Analysis of the attendance level can highlight ‘at risk’ populations (where a large proportion of individuals have had low attendance over the school year). Data on the student attendance level by Indigenous status and remoteness are in tables 4A.22–24.

2. Attendance

‘Attendance’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that school education services promotes student participation.

‘Attendance’ is defined by the student attendance rate — the number of actual full time equivalent student days attended by full time students as a percentage of the total number of possible student attendance days attended over the period.

Higher or increasing rates of attendance are desirable. Poor attendance has been related to poor student outcomes, particularly once patterns of non‑attendance are established (Hancock et al. 2013).

Nationally in 2021, across all schools attendance rates decreased from year 7 to year 10 — from 91.2 per cent to 87.0 per cent (table 4A.20). For years 7–10 combined, attendance rates are higher at non‑government schools (91.7 per cent) than government schools (86.8 per cent).

Nationally in 2021, the attendance rate for all school students across year levels 1–6 was 92.3 per cent (figure 4.3). The year 1–6 attendance rates have decreased slightly since 2015 (slightly over 1 percentage point) with similar decreases across most jurisdictions (table 4A.20).

3. Student engagement

‘Student engagement’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that school education services engage all students.

‘Student engagement’ is defined as encompassing the following three dimensions:

• behavioural engagement — which may be measured by identifiable behaviours of engagement, such as school attendance, attainment and retention
• emotional engagement — which may be measured by students’ attitudes to learning and school
• cognitive engagement — which may be measured by students’ perception of intellectual challenge, effort or interest and motivation (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004).

It is measured using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — a triennial assessment of 15 year‑old students conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that also collects student and school background contextual data. PISA collects information on one aspect of emotional engagement — students’ sense of belonging at school. Students’ level of agreement to six statements are combined to construct a Sense of Belonging as School Index (table 4A.25).

Higher or increasing scores on the Index illustrate a greater sense of belonging at school, which is desirable. The index is standardised to have a mean of 0 across OECD countries. Higher values of the index indicate a greater sense of belonging at school than the OECD average and lower values indicate a lesser sense of belonging at school than the OECD average.

These data should be interpreted with caution, as they are limited to one aspect of emotional engagement and captured for students at a single age (students aged 15 years).

National data are not currently agreed to report against behavioural or cognitive engagement. However contextual information is provided on State and Territory government student engagement surveys, where they have been conducted (table 4.1). These surveys collect information from students across the behavioural, emotional, and cognitive domains of engagement. In addition, some aspects of behavioural engagement are captured via the attendance, retention and attainment indicators.

Nationally in 2018, the proportion of 15 year old students that agreed/disagreed with the following statements was:

• I make friends easily at school (agree) — 75.6 (± 1.0) per cent
• I feel like I belong at school (agree) — 68.2 (± 1.0) per cent
• Other students seem to like me (agree) — 85.3 (± 0.9) per cent
• I feel like an outsider (or left out of things) at school (disagree) — 72.9 (± 1.0) per cent
• I feel awkward and out of place at my school (disagree) — 75.2 (± 0.9) per cent
• I feel lonely at school (disagree) — 80.7 (± 0.9) per cent (figure 4.4).

From these responses, the Sense of Belonging at School Index for Australian students aged 15 years was ‑0.19 (± 0.02) (figure 4.4). The score, which is below the 2018 OECD average, varied across jurisdictions. National data on the Sense of Belonging at School Index, by special needs group (sex, Indigenous status, geolocation, and socioeconomic background) are included in table 4A.26.

Sense of belonging at school has been measured in four cycles of PISA: in 2003, 2012 2015 and 2018. Nationally, over this 12 year period, students’ agreement/disagreement with the Sense of Belonging Index statements have declined (ACER 2018, table 4A.25).

Table 4.1 School student engagement survey results

https://www.education.sa.gov.au/department/research-and-data/wellbeing-and-engagement-collection/about-wellbeing-and-engagement-collection

Source : State and Territory governments (unpublished).

4. Retention

‘Retention’ to the final years of schooling is an indicator of governments’ objective that the school education system aims to engage all students and promote student participation.

‘Retention’ (apparent retention rate) is defined as the number of full time school students in year 10 that continue to year 12.

The term ‘apparent’ is used because the measures are derived from total numbers of students in each of year 10 and year 12, not by tracking the retention of individual students. Uncapped rates (rates that can be greater than 100 per cent) are reported for time series analysis. Care needs to be taken in interpreting the measures as they do not take account of factors such as:

• students repeating a year of education or returning to education after a period of absence
• movement or migration of students between school sectors, between states/territories and between countries
• the impact of full fee paying overseas students.

These factors may lead to uncapped apparent retention rates that exceed 100 per cent.

This indicator does not include part time or ungraded students (which has implications for the interpretation of results for all jurisdictions) or provide information on students who pursue year 12 (or equivalent qualifications) through non‑school pathways.

Apparent retention rates are affected by factors that vary across jurisdictions. For this reason, variations in apparent retention rates over time within jurisdictions may be more useful than comparisons across jurisdictions.

A higher or increasing rate is desirable as it suggests that a larger proportion of students are continuing in school, which may result in improved educational outcomes.

Nationally in 2021, the apparent retention rate from year 10 to year 12 was 81.6 per cent, an increase from 79.3 per cent in 2012 but below the peak of 83.3 per cent in 2017. The rate was 77.2 per cent for government schools and 87.9 per cent for non-government schools. This pattern was similar for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and non-Indigenous students (figure 4.5).

Consistent with the NYPR mandatory requirement that all young people participate in schooling until they complete year 10, the apparent retention rate for all schools from the commencement of secondary school (at year 7 or 8) to year 10 has remained above 97 per cent in all jurisdictions (other than the NT) since 2011. Nationally, the retention rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students was over 97 per cent in 2021, but lower than that of non‑Indigenous students (table 4A.27).

5. Quality teaching

‘Quality teaching’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that school education delivers high quality teaching of a world‑class curriculum. A good quality curriculum provides the structure for the provision of quality learning (UNESCO‑IBE 2016), while teachers are the single most important ‘in‑school’ influence on student achievement (Hattie 2009). Teacher quality can influence student educational outcomes both directly and indirectly, by fostering a positive, inclusive and safe learning environment (Boon 2011).

‘Quality teaching’ is defined in relation to the teaching environment, including the quality of the curriculum and the effectiveness of the teachers. Teachers are considered effective where they:

• create an environment where all students are expected to learn successfully
• have a deep understanding of the curriculum and subjects they teach
• have a repertoire of effective teaching strategies to meet student needs
• direct their teaching to student needs and readiness
• provide continuous feedback to students about their learning
• reflect on their own practice and strive for continuous improvement (PC 2012).

This indicator may be measured in future by student responses to survey questions on their perceptions of the teaching environment including the curriculum. High or increasing proportions of students indicating positive responses to the teaching environment are desirable.

Data are not yet available for reporting against this indicator.

6. Recurrent expenditure per student

‘Recurrent expenditure per student’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide school education services in an efficient manner.

‘Recurrent expenditure per student’ is defined as total government recurrent expenditure per FTE student, reported for government schools and for non‑government schools. Government recurrent expenditure per FTE student includes estimates for UCC for government schools (see '6a. Efficiency' on the Indicator results tab). UCC is not included for non‑government schools.

FTE student numbers (table 4A.3) are drawn from the ABS publication Schools Australia 2020 (ABS 2021) and averaged over two calendar years to match the financial year expenditure data. From 2018-19, FTE enrolled students used to derive NSW and total Australian recurrent expenditure per student for government and all schools excludes Norfolk Island Central School FTE enrolments.

Holding other factors constant, a low or decreasing government recurrent expenditure or staff expenditure per FTE student may represent better or improved efficiency.

Care should be taken in interpretation of efficiency data as:

• a number of factors beyond the control of governments, such as economies of scale, a high proportion of geographically remote students and/or a dispersed population, and migration across states and territories, may influence expenditure
• while high or increasing expenditure per student may reflect deteriorating efficiency, it may also reflect changes in aspects of schooling (increasing school leaving age, improving outcomes for students with special needs, broader curricula or enhancing teacher quality), or the characteristics of the education environment (such as population dispersion).
• Reporting requirements and methodologies may vary between years. Refer to footnotes in the data tables.

Nationally in 2019-20, government recurrent expenditure per FTE student in all schools was $17 779 (figure 4.6). Between 2010‑11 and 2019-20, real government expenditure per FTE student increased at an average rate of 2.2 per cent per year (table 4A.14).

Nationally in 2019‑20, government recurrent expenditure per FTE student in non‑government schools was $13 189 (does not include UCC). Between 2010‑11 and 2019‑20 real government expenditure per FTE student increased at an average rate of 3.9 per cent per year.

Nationally in 2019‑20, government recurrent expenditure (including UCC) was $20 182 per FTE student in government schools (excluding UCC this was $17 169). Between 2010‑11 and 2019‑20, real government expenditure (including UCC) per FTE student increased at an average rate of 1.7 per cent per year.

In-school expenditure per FTE student was higher for government secondary schools ($21 571 per FTE student) compared to government primary schools ($17 759 per FTE student). Out-of-school government expenditure per FTE student was substantially lower ($944 per FTE student) (table 4A.15).

Differences in the ‘student-to-staff ratio’ can provide some context to differences in the government recurrent expenditure per FTE student. Further information is available under Size and scope under the 'Context' tab.

6a. Efficiency

An objective of the Steering Committee is to publish comparable estimates of costs. Ideally, such comparison should include the full range of costs to government. This section does not report on non‑government sources of funding, and so does not compare the efficiency of government and non‑government schools.

School expenditure data reported in this section

Efficiency indicators in this section are based on financial year recurrent expenditure on government and non‑government schools by the Australian Government and State and Territory governments. Capital expenditure is generally excluded, but as Quality Schools funding and Students First funding cannot be separated into capital and recurrent expenditure, these payments are treated as recurrent expenditure in this section. Expenditure relating to funding sources other than government (such as parent contributions and fees) are excluded.

Sources of data — government recurrent expenditure on government schools

Total recurrent expenditure on government schools is unpublished data sourced from the National Schools Statistics Collection (NSSC) finance.

• Each State and Territory government reports its expenditure on government schools to the Government Schools Finance Statistics Group Secretariat. Recurrent expenditure on government schools comprises: employee costs (including salaries, superannuation, workers compensation, payroll tax, termination and long service leave, sick leave, fringe benefits tax); capital related costs (depreciation and user cost of capital [UCC]); umbrella departmental costs; and other costs (including rent and utilities). The Government Schools Finance Statistics Group Secretariat provides unpublished data on the UCC for government schools, imputed as 8 per cent of the written down value of assets (table 4A.13).
• The Australian Government reports its allocation to each State and Territory for government schools, consistent with Treasury Final Budget Outcomes — including the Quality Schools funding (from 1 January 2018), Students First funding (to 31 December 2017) and a range of National Partnership payments (table 4A.12).
• To avoid double counting, Australian Government allocations are subtracted from the State and Territory expenditure to identify ‘net’ State and Territory government expenditure (table 4A.10).

Sources of data — government recurrent expenditure on non‑government schools

Total recurrent expenditure on non‑government schools is sourced from unpublished data from State and Territory governments, and published data from the Australian Government as follows:

• Each State and Territory government provides unpublished data on its contributions to non‑government schools (table 4A.10).
• The Australian Government reports its allocation to each State and Territory for non‑government schools, consistent with Treasury Final Budget Outcomes — including the Quality Schools funding (from 1 January 2018), Students First funding (to 31 December 2017) and National Partnership payments (see table 4A.12).

Allocation of funding

Quality schools package — australian government.

From 1 January 2018 the Australian Government introduced the Quality Schools Package replacing the Students First funding model which had been in effect since 1 January 2014. The Quality Schools Package is needs based. Commonwealth funding will be based on the Schooling Resource Standard that provides a base amount per student and additional funding for disadvantage. Students with greater needs will attract higher levels of funding from the Commonwealth. Funding is provided for government and non-government schools.

State and Territory governments

In general, State and Territory government schools systems are funded based on a variety of formulas to determine a school’s recurrent or base allocation, with weightings and multipliers added for students facing disadvantage. For non‑government schools, State and Territory governments also provide funding for recurrent and targeted purposes, usually through per capita allocations. Indexation of costs is normally applied to these funding arrangements for both the government and non‑government school sectors. Changes in overall funding by State and Territory governments across years is affected by all these factors, including enrolment numbers and school size, location and staffing profiles. Commencing 1 January 2019 with the signing of the National School Reform Agreement state and territory funding requirements are set as a percentage of the Schooling Resourcing Standard.

User cost of capital (UCC)

The UCC is defined as the notional costs to governments of the funds tied up in capital (for example, land and buildings owned by government schools) used to provide services. The notional UCC makes explicit the opportunity cost of using government funds to own assets for the provision of services rather than investing elsewhere or retiring debt.

UCC is only reported for government schools ( not non‑government schools). It is estimated at 8 per cent of the value of non‑current physical assets, which are re‑valued over time.

Source : Australian Government Department of Education Skills and Employment (2020) https://www.education.gov.au/quality-schools-package-factsheet, accessed 9 October 2020.

7. Student outcomes (national testing)

‘Student outcomes (national testing)’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that Australian schooling aims for all young Australians to become successful lifelong learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed members of the community.

‘Student outcomes (national testing)’ is defined by two measures drawn from the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) and National Assessment Program (NAP) sample assessments:

• Achieving (but not exceeding) the national minimum standard represents achievement of the basic elements of literacy or numeracy for the year level (ACARA 2021). The mean scale score refers to a mean (average) score on a common national scale.
• States and territories have different school starting ages resulting in differing average ages of students and average time students had spent in schooling at the time of testing. See table 4.2 for more information on average ages of students and average years of schooling across jurisdictions at the time of testing in 2021.
• From 2018, NAPLAN has been transitioning from pen and paper tests to online testing. For the 2018 transition year, the online test results were equated with the pen and paper tests. Results for both the tests are reported on the same NAPLAN assessment scale and so should be comparable with previous years.
• The proficient standards, which vary across the tests, are challenging but reasonable levels of performance, with students needing to demonstrate more than minimal or elementary skills expected at that year level to be regarded as reaching them.

All data are accompanied by confidence intervals. See the 'Key terms and references' tab for details on NAPLAN and NAP confidence intervals.

A high or increasing mean scale score or proportion of students achieving at or above the national minimum standard (NAPLAN) or proficiency standard (NAP) is desirable.

Nationally for NAPLAN, the proportion achieving the national minimum standard in 2021 was statistically significantly:

• above that in 2008 for reading for Year 3 and Year 5 students and below for year 9, but there was no significant difference for Year 7 students (figure 4.7)
• above that in 2011 for writing for Year 3, but no significant difference for years 5, 7 or 9 students (table 4A.34)
• above that in 2008 for numeracy for Year 5 and below for Year 7 students, but there was no significant difference for Years 3 or 9 students (table 4A.38).

Mean scale scores are reported for reading, writing and numeracy in tables 4A.31, 4A.35 and 4A.39 respectively.

Students are counted as participating if they were assessed or deemed exempt (other students identified as absent or withdrawn are counted as not participating). In 2021, NAPLAN participation rates were at or above 90 per cent for most jurisdictions across testing domains and year levels (ACARA 2021).

Nationally for NAP in 2019, 53.0 (± 2.0) per cent of Year 6 students (table 4.1) and 38.0 (± 2.6) per cent of Year 10 students achieved at or above the proficient standard in Civics and citizenship literacy performance (table 4A.45). Mean scale scores for Citizenship literacy performance are in table 4A.46. National data on the proportion of students achieving at or above the proficient standard by special needs group (sex, Indigenous status, geolocation and parental occupation) are in table 4A.47.

Nationally in 2018, 58.0 (± 2.4) per cent of Year 6 students achieved at or above the proficient standard NAP in science literacy. Mean scale scores for NAP science literacy performance are in table 4A.43. National data on the proportion of students achieving at or above the proficient standard by special needs group (sex, Indigenous status, geolocation and parental occupation) are in table 4A.44.

Nationally in 2017, of Year 6 students and Year 10 students, 53 (±2.4) per cent and 54 (±3.0) per cent, respectively, achieved at or above the proficient standards in ICT literacy performance (table 4A.48). Mean scale scores for NAP ICT literacy are in table 4A.49. National data on the proportion of students achieving at or above the proficient standard by special needs group (sex, Indigenous status, geolocation and parental occupation) are in table 4A.50.

Source : ACARA (2021) National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2021 , ACARA, Sydney.

8. Attainment

‘Attainment’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that Australian schooling aims for all young Australians to become successful lifelong learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed members of the community.

‘Attainment’ (attainment rate) is defined as the number of students who meet the requirements of a year 12 certificate or equivalent expressed as a percentage of the estimated potential year 12 population. The estimated potential year 12 population is an estimate of a single year age group that could have attended year 12 that year, calculated as the estimated resident population aged 15–19 divided by five.

This indicator should be interpreted with caution as:

• assessment, reporting and criteria for obtaining a year 12 or equivalent certificate varies across jurisdictions
• students completing their secondary education in technical and further education institutes are included in reporting for some jurisdictions and not in others
• the aggregation of all postcode locations into three socioeconomic status categories (as a disaggregation for socioeconomic status) — high, medium and low — means there may be significant variation within the categories. The low category, for example, will include locations ranging from those of extreme disadvantage to those of moderate disadvantage.

A high or increasing completion rate is desirable.

Nationally in 2020, the year 12 certificate attainment rate for all students was 76 per cent. The rates increased as socioeconomic status increased. Across remoteness areas, the rates were substantially lower in very remote areas compared to other areas (figure 4.8).

The Child care, education and training sector overview includes data on the proportions of the population aged 20–24 and 20–64 years that attained at least a year 12 or equivalent or AQF Certificate II or above (that is school and non-school education and training to year 12 or equivalent or above) (tables BA.9–10).

9. Student outcomes (international testing)

‘Student outcomes (international testing)’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that Australian schooling aims for students to excel by international standards.

‘Student outcomes (international testing)’ is defined by Australia’s participation in three international tests:

• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) — conducted by the IEA as a quadrennial international assessment — measures the proportion of sampled year 4 and year 8 students achieving at or above the IEA intermediate international benchmark, the national proficient standard in Australia for mathematics and science in the TIMSS assessment.
• Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — conducted by the OECD as a triennial international assessment — measures the proportion of sampled 15 year old students achieving at or above the national proficient standard (set to level 3) on the OECD PISA combined scales for reading, mathematical and scientific literacy.
• Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) — conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) as a quinquennial international assessment — measures the proportion of sampled year 4 students achieving at or above the IEA intermediate international benchmark, the national proficient standard in Australia for reading literacy in the PIRLS assessment.

A high or increasing proportion of students achieving at or above the national proficient standard, or a high or increasing mean scale score is desirable.

TIMSS Nationally in 2019, the proportion of students that achieved at or above the national proficient standard for the TIMSS:

• mathematics assessment was 69.6 (±2.5) per cent for year 4 students and 68.0 (±2.9) per cent for year 8 students (table 4.2)
• science assessment was 78.3 (±2.3) per cent for year 4 students and 74.2 (±2.4) per cent for year 8 students (table 4A.55).

Nationally in 2019, a higher or similar proportion of students achieved at or above the intermediate international benchmark compared to previous assessments. Results varied across jurisdictions (tables 4A.54–55).

PISA Nationally in 2018, the proportion of Australian 15 year old students who achieved the national proficient standard in:

• reading literacy was 59.3 (± 1.3) per cent (table 4A.51)
• mathematical literacy was 54.2 (± 1.6) per cent (table 4A.52)
• scientific literacy was 58.1 (± 1.5) per cent (table 4A.53).

Across the three literacy domains, the proportions of Australian 15 year old students who achieved at or above the national proficient standard in 2018 were significantly lower than the proportions achieved in 2015 for science, but similar to results in 2015 for mathematics and reading (tables 4A.51-53). Compared to the OECD average in 2018, Australian 15 year old students scored:

• higher for reading literacy and scientific literacy
• the same for mathematical literacy (ACER 2019).

Data by Indigenous status, remoteness, socioeconomic background and sex for each literacy domain are reported in tables 4A.51-53.

PIRLS Nationally in 2016, the proportion of year 4 students that achieved at or above the national proficient standard for reading literacy was 80.9 (± 2.1) per cent, a significant increase from 2011 although results vary by jurisdiction (table 4A.56).

Of the countries that participated in the PIRLS assessment, Australian year 4 students:

• significantly outperformed students from 24 other countries.
• were significantly outperformed by students from 13 other countries (ACER 2017).

10. Destination

‘Destination’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that Australian schooling aims for all young Australians to become active and informed members of the community positioning them to transition to further study and/or work and successful lives.

‘Destination’ is defined as the proportion of school leavers aged 15–24 years who left school in the previous year, who are participating in further education, training and/or employment. Data are reported for school leavers whose highest level of school completed was year 12, or year 11 and below.

A higher or increasing proportion of school leavers participating in further education, training and/or employment is desirable.

Data are sourced from the Survey of Education and Work and for this indicator relate to the jurisdiction in which the young person was resident the year of the survey and not necessarily the jurisdiction in which they attended school.

This Report includes information on the student destination surveys conducted by each State and Territory government, as context to this indicator (table 4.3). These surveys collect information from a larger number of students within relevant jurisdictions, but the research methods and data collection instruments differ which do not enable comparative reporting.

The proportion of all school leavers aged 15–24 years who left school in 2020 and who in 2021 were fully engaged in work or study was 74.6 per cent. This proportion compares to 63.2 per cent in the previous year (reflecting the impact of COVID-19), which was a decrease on earlier years (which ranged between 68.0 and 70.9 per cent) (figure 4.9). Proportions were higher for year 12 completers (77.7 per cent), compared to those who completed year 11 or below (60.2 per cent) (table 4A.59).

The Child care, education and training sector overview includes additional data on the participation of school leavers aged 17–24 years in work and study, including data on the Indigenous status of school leavers (tables BA.2–4).

Table 4.3 School leaver destination survey results

Performance indicator data for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this section are available in the data tables listed below. Further supporting information can be found in the 'Indicator results' tab and data tables.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2022, Schools Australia, 2021, Canberra.

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) 2021, National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2021, Sydney.

ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) 2019, PISA 2018: Reporting Australia’s Results. Volume I Student Performance, ACER Australia.

—— 2018, PISA Australia in Focus: Number 1 – Sense of belonging at school, ACER, Australia.

—— 2017, PIRLS 2016: Reporting Australia’s results, ACER, Melbourne.

Boon, H.J. 2011, ‘Raising the bar: ethics education for quality teachers’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 36, pp. 76–93.

Bruckauf, Z. and Chzhen, Y., 2016, Education for All? Measuring inequality of educational outcomes among 15‑year‑olds across 39 industrialized nations, Innocenti Working Papers no. 2016_08, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

COAG 2018, National School Reform Agreement, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_school_reform_agreement_9_0.pdf (accessed 9 October 2020).

—— 2009, COAG Meeting Communique April 2009, https://www.coag.gov.au/meeting-outcomes/coag-meeting-communique-30-april-2009 (accessed 21 November 2019).

EC (Education Council) 2019, Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/Alice-Springs--Mparntwe--Education-Declaration.aspx (accessed 9 October 2020).

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Paris, A. 2004, ‘School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 74 Spring 2004, pp 59–109.

Hattie, J.A. 2009, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta‑analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, New York, USA.

Hancock, K. J., Shepherd, C. C. J., Lawrence, D. and Zubrick, S. R. 2013, Student attendance and educational outcomes: Every day counts. Report for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

NCVER (National Centre for Vocational Education Research) 2021, VET in Schools 2020, Adelaide.

PC (Productivity Commission) 2012, Schools Workforce, Research Report, Canberra.

PM&C (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) 2014, Roles and responsibilities in education, Part A: Early Childhood and Schools, Reform of Federation White Issues Paper 4, Canberra.

UNESCO‑IBE. (United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation – International Bureau of Education) (2016), What Makes a Quality Curriculum?, UNESCO International, Bureau of Education, Geneva, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243975e.pdf (accessed 23 October 2017).

Download supporting material

• 4 School education data tables (XLSX - 748 Kb)

See the corresponding table number in the data tables for detailed definitions, caveats, footnotes and data source(s).

[DN: Include if necessary] Note: An errata was released for section X data tables above.

The following data have changed for Section X xxx data tables:

• Table XXX.X: Data for ...
• Table XXX.XX: Net ...

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Half of Latinas Say Hispanic Women’s Situation Has Improved in the Past Decade and Expect More Gains

Government data shows gains in education, employment and earnings for Hispanic women, but gaps with other groups remain

Table of contents.

• Assessing the progress of Hispanic women in the last 10 years
• Views of Hispanic women’s situation in the next 10 years
• Views on the gender pay gap
• Latinas’ educational attainment
• Latinas’ labor force participation
• Latinas’ earnings
• Latinas as breadwinners in their relationships
• Bachelor’s degrees among Latinas
• Labor force participation rates among Latinas
• Occupations among working Latinas
• Earnings among Latinas
• Latinas as breadwinners in 2022
• Appendix: Supplemental charts and tables
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Methodology for the analysis of the Current Population Survey

This report explores Latinas’ economic and demographic progress in the last two decades – and their perceptions of that progress – using several data sources.

The first is a Pew Research Center survey of 5,078 Hispanic adults, including 2,600 Hispanic women. Respondents were asked whether U.S. Latinas saw progress in their situation in the last decade, whether they expected any in the future decade, and how big a problem the U.S. gender pay gap is. The survey was conducted from Nov. 6 to 19, 2023, and includes 1,524 respondents from the American Trends Panel (ATP) and an additional 3,554 from Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel .

Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Recruiting panelists by mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population, or in this case the whole U.S. Hispanic population. (For more information, watch our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling.) For more information on this survey, refer to the American Trends Panel survey methodology and the topline questionnaire .

The second data source is the U.S. Census Bureau’s and Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023 Current Population Survey (CPS) Monthly and Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data series, provided through the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) from the University of Minnesota.

The CPS Monthly microdata series was used only to calculate median hourly earnings for those ages 25 to 64 years old and who were not self-employed. Medians were calculated for the whole year by considering all wages reported in that year, regardless of month. Median wages were then adjusted to June 2023 dollars using the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for June of each year. For more information on the demographic analysis, refer to the methodology for the analysis of the Current Population Survey .

The terms  Hispanic  and  Latino  are used interchangeably in this report.

The terms Latinas and Hispanic women are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adult women who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of their racial identity.

Foreign born  refers to persons born outside of the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia. For the purposes of this report, foreign born also refers to those born in Puerto Rico. Although individuals born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens by birth, they are grouped with the foreign born because they are born into a Spanish-dominant culture and because on many points their attitudes, views and beliefs are much closer to those of Hispanics born outside the U.S. than to Hispanics born in the 50 U.S. states or D.C., even those who identify themselves as being of Puerto Rican origin.

The terms  foreign born  and  immigrant  are used interchangeably in this report. Immigrants are also considered first-generation Americans.

U.S. born  refers to persons born in the 50 U.S. states or D.C.

Second generation  refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or D.C. with at least one immigrant parent.

Third or higher generation  refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or D.C., with both parents born in the 50 U.S. states or D.C.

Throughout this report, Democrats are respondents who identify politically with the Democratic Party or those who are independent or identify with some other party but lean toward the Democratic Party. Similarly, Republicans are those who identify politically with the Republican Party and those who are independent or identify with some other party but lean toward the Republican Party.

White, Black  and  Asian each include those who report being only one race and are not Hispanic.

Civilians are those who were not in the armed forces at the time of completing the Current Population Survey.

Those participating in the labor force either were at work; held a job but were temporarily absent from work due to factors like vacation or illness; were seeking work; or were temporarily laid off from a job in the week before taking the Current Population Survey. In this report, the labor force participation rate is shown only for civilians ages 25 to 64.

The phrases living with children or living with their own child describe individuals living with at least one of their own stepchildren, adopted children or biological children, regardless of the children’s ages. The phrases not living with children or not living with their own child describe individuals who have no children or whose children do not live with them.

Occupation and occupational groups describe the occupational category of someone’s current job, or – if unemployed – most recent job. In this report we measure occupation among civilians participating in the labor force. Occupational groups are adapted from the U.S. Census Bureau’s occupation classification list from 2018 onward .

Hourly earnings , hourly wages and hourly pay all refer to the amount an employee reported making per hour at the time of taking the Current Population Survey where they were employed by someone else. Median hourly wages were calculated only for those ages 25 to 64 who were not self-employed. Calculated median hourly wages shared in this report are adjusted for inflation to 2023. (A median means that half of a given population – for example, Hispanic women – earned more than the stated wage, and half earned less.)

Breadwinners refer to those living with a spouse or partner, both ages 25 to 64, who make over 60% of their and their partner’s combined, positive income from all sources. Those in egalitarian relationships make 40% to 60% of the combined income. For those who make less than 40% of the combined income, their spouse or partner is the breadwinner . This analysis was conducted among both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Half of Latinas say the situation of Hispanic women in the United States is better now than it was 10 years ago, and a similar share say the situation will improve in the next 10 years.

Still, 39% of Latinas say that the situation has stayed the same, and 34% say it will not change in the next 10 years. Two-thirds (66%) say the gender pay gap – the fact that women earn less money, on average, than men – is a big problem for Hispanic women today, according to new analysis of Pew Research Center’s National Survey of Latinos.

At 22.2 million, Latinas account for 17% of all adult women in the U.S. today. Their population grew by 5.6 million from 2010 to 2022, the largest numeric increase of any major female racial or ethnic group. 1

Latinas’ mixed assessments reflect their group’s gains in education and at work over the last two decades, but also stalled progress in closing wage gaps with other groups.

• Hispanic women are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree today (23% in 2023) than they were in 2013 (16%). More Hispanic women than ever are also completing graduate degrees .
• Hispanic women have increased their labor force participation rate by 4 percentage points, from 65% in 2013 to 69% in 2023.
• The median hourly wage of Hispanic women has increased by 17% in the last decade. In 2023, their median hourly wage was $19.23, up from $16.47 in 2013 (in 2023 dollars).

Despite this progress, Hispanic women’s pay gaps with their peers haven’t significantly improved in recent years:

• The gender pay gap among Hispanics persists with no significant change. In 2023, Hispanic women earned 85 cents (at the median) for every dollar earned by Hispanic men, compared with 89 cents per dollar in 2013 (and 87 cents per dollar in 2003).
• Hispanic women continue to lag non-Hispanic women in earnings , with no significant improvement in the past decade. In 2023, the median Hispanic woman made 77 cents for each dollar earned by the median non-Hispanic woman, compared with 75 cents per dollar in 2013.
• The pay gap between Hispanic women and White men has changed only slightly . In 2023, Hispanic women earned 62 cents of every dollar earned by non-Hispanic White men, up from 59 cents per dollar in 2013.

In addition, Hispanic women lag Hispanic men and non-Hispanic women in labor force participation, and they lag non-Hispanic women in educational attainment. Read more in Chapter 2 .

Among Latinas who are employed, about half (49%) say their current job is best described as “just a job to get them by.” Fewer see their job as a career (30%) or a steppingstone to a career (14%).

Pew Research Center’s bilingual 2023 National Survey of Latinos – conducted Nov. 6-19, 2023, among 5,078 Hispanic adults, including 2,600 Hispanic women – explores what it’s like to be a Latina in the U.S. today. This report uses findings from our 2023 survey as well as demographic and economic data from the Current Population Survey.

The following chapters take a closer look at:

• How Latinas view the progress and future situation of Hispanic women in the U.S.
• What government data tells us about Latinas’ progress in the labor market, earnings and educational attainment
• How Latinas’ educational and economic outcomes vary

For additional survey findings on what it means to be a Latina in the U.S. today and the daily pressures they face, read our report “A Majority of Latinas Feel Pressure To Support Their Families or To Succeed at Work.”

• Latinas’ population size and growth rate from 2010 to 2022 were calculated using the 2010 and 2022 American Community Surveys, accessed through IPUMS. The rest of the demographic analysis in this post uses data from the Current Population Survey. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Economics, Work & Gender
• Education & Gender
• Educational Attainment
• Gender & Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Pay Gap
• Higher Education
• Hispanics/Latinos
• Hispanics/Latinos & Education

Key facts about U.S. Latinos with graduate degrees

Hispanic enrollment reaches new high at four-year colleges in the u.s., but affordability remains an obstacle, u.s. public school students often go to schools where at least half of their peers are the same race or ethnicity, what’s behind the growing gap between men and women in college completion, for u.s. latinos, covid-19 has taken a personal and financial toll, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

• Accord 2024-25 Budget Measures
• Accord Final Report
• Accord Priority Actions
• Accord Consultations
• Accord Panel
• Accord Terms of Reference
• Announcements

Australian Universities Accord Final Report Document

On 25 February 2024, the Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, released the Australian Universities Accord Final Report.

The Australian Universities Accord Final Report contains 47 recommendations for Government consideration and aims to create a long-term reform plan for the higher education sector to meet Australia’s future skills needs.

A Summary Report was prepared by the Department of Education and outlines themes and issues identified in the Accord Final Report.

• Download Australian Universities Accord Final Report Document as a PDF (4.06mb)
• Download Australian Universities Accord Final Report Document as a DOCX (10.27mb)

We aim to provide documents in an accessible format. If you're having problems accessing a document, please contact us for help .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Top Education Officials Were Warned of FAFSA Overhaul Hurdles in 2020

Documents obtained by The Times show the department’s troubled FAFSA rollout this year came in spite of early warnings that the project required sustained attention.

By Zach Montague

Reporting from Washington

Long before the Education Department’s overhaul of the federal student aid application fell apart this year, officials who now lead the department were warned of a complex and time-consuming effort and its potential pitfalls in 2020, according to internal emails and documents obtained by The New York Times.

The documents anticipated a demanding timetable that would require the department to closely manage its priorities over several years to revamp the application form in time for students’ fall 2022 applications. The documents were prepared by the department’s staff and circulated among soon-to-be top officials after the 2020 election but before President Biden took office, including James Kvaal, the under secretary of education, and Benjamin Miller, a deputy under secretary.

The revelation that the officials were advised to prepare for an arduous process yet still failed to deliver a working form three years later is likely to add to the intense scrutiny the department has faced over the handling of the project, which threw the college application season into chaos earlier this year.

The documents were all distributed in December 2020, as Congress was about to pass a law requiring the department to overhaul the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as FAFSA. The law, which mandated changes that included whittling the unwieldy 108-question form down to a more manageable 36, originally envisioned the new form being ready for students by the fall of 2022.

In the weeks before Mr. Biden was inaugurated, officials overseeing the presidential transition approached the Education Department to take stock of pending challenges as they began to sketch out the new administration’s priorities among federal agencies.

In several instances, members of the transition team were told by the staff at the department’s Federal Student Aid office that the 2022 deadline mandated by Congress was too aggressive. They also warned that overhauling the form and the system used to calculate student aid offers would be a major undertaking that required collaboration with other agencies and deft project management.

“Do you have any issues around the proposals for FAFSA reform that have been floating around the hill that you think are worth flagging in case the permanent team needs it on its radar?” the transition team asked the office in one questionnaire.

“This bill would rebuild the FAFSA and the need analysis formula from the ground up,” the office replied in its written answers, adding, “FSA believes that a more realistic implementation time frame would be the 2024-2025 cycle.”

In another instance, the office advised that even a routine launch of the form incorporating “typical, annual changes” could require at least 15 months, and that getting the form ready by the 2022 deadline would be “next to impossible.”

In light of those warnings, the department sought a one-year extension, which Congress granted in March 2022 to move the deadline to Oct. 1, 2023.

Even with the extra time, however, the Education Department repeatedly fell behind.

A string of errors and last-minute tweaks forced officials to push the release of the simplified form from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31. And even once the new form had launched, a maddening array of bugs affected both applicants and college administrators waiting to receive student aid data.

Current and former officials who worked on the FAFSA simplification once the scale of the problems became clear have said that the department’s leaders often failed to check in on the project along the way, and were overly focused on other priorities such as the Biden administration’s flagship student loan forgiveness plans.

A spokesman for the Education Department said that including the FAFSA form, the agency was forced to work through three major initiatives as mandated by Congress within six months of one another — also endeavoring to restart student loan repayments after the pandemic and approving new student loan servicing contracts. Despite the tight deadlines, the spokesman said, Congress provided the department no new funding.

The documents indicate that although top officials were alerted early on that the law would require substantial action, they were still unable to stave off the troubled rollout this year.

The Government Accountability Office documented concerns about the department’s progress in a report in June , which highlighted questions about management of contractors on the project and called on the department to stay on schedule. The office is also pursuing an investigation of the department’s overall management of the project.

After an agencywide scramble to fix the form this spring , the department has since shifted its attention to reaching out to students who may have been derailed or failed to apply for aid. Since February, the department has allocated $100 million to support students and colleges and bolster applications — nearly 30 percent of the total $336 million it spent on the simplification project.

Since problems with the form came into public view in 2023, Education Secretary Miguel A. Cardona has repeatedly said that the agency’s hands were tied by the congressional deadline, and that the department has done everything in its power to meet its deadlines despite limited resources.

Mr. Cardona has said that the department expects the form to work normally for students applying to college this fall, and that the changes will benefit future applicants.

“FAFSA has been a priority since Day 1 when we got into these positions, and it will continue to be a priority until we deliver for these students,” Mr. Cardona told lawmakers in April.

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Inside the Biden Administration

Here’s the latest news and analysis from washington..

Trade War With China:  President Biden increased tariffs  on Chinese goods, building on former President Donald Trump’s crackdown on trade with China. The move aims to increase jobs, but consumers might not like the costs .

Marijuana Restrictions:  The Biden administration moved to downgrade marijuana from the most restrictive category of drugs , signaling a significant shift in how the federal government views the substance.

Documents Case:  Biden has asserted executive privilege  to deny House Republicans access to recordings of his interview with a special counsel investigating his handling of government documents.

Israel-Hamas War:  The White House has told Congress that it intends to move forward with a plan for the United States to sell more than $1 billion in new weapons to Israel .

Student Loans:  After a deadline passed for federal loan borrowers seeking debt relief, the Education Department has extended the offer until June 30 .

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/16/new-rshe-guidance-what-it-means-for-sex-education-lessons-in-schools/

New RSHE guidance: What it means for sex education lessons in schools

R elationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) is a subject taught at both primary and secondary school.  

In 2020, Relationships and Sex Education was made compulsory for all secondary school pupils in England and Health Education compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools.  

Last year, the Prime Minister and Education Secretary brought forward the first review of the curriculum following reports of pupils being taught inappropriate content in RSHE in some schools.  

The review was informed by the advice of an independent panel of experts. The results of the review and updated guidance for consultation has now been published.   

We are now asking for views from parents, schools and others before the guidance is finalised. You can find the consultation here .   

What is new in the updated curriculum?  

Following the panel’s advice, w e’re introducing age limits, to ensure children aren’t being taught about sensitive and complex subjects before they are ready to fully understand them.    

We are also making clear that the concept of gender identity – the sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or a number of other categories   – is highly contested and should not be taught. This is in line with the cautious approach taken in our gu idance on gender questioning children.  

Along with other factors, teaching this theory in the classroom could prompt some children to start to question their gender when they may not have done so otherwise, and is a complex theory for children to understand.   

The facts about biological sex and gender reassignment will still be taught.  

The guidance for schools also contains a new section on transparency with parents, making it absolutely clear that parents have a legal right to know what their children are being taught in RSHE and can request to see teaching materials.   

In addition, we’re seeking views on adding several new subjects to the curriculum, and more detail on others. These include:   

• Suicide prevention  
• Sexual harassment and sexual violence  
• L oneliness  
• The prevalence of 'deepfakes’  
• Healthy behaviours during pregnancy, as well as miscarriage  
• Illegal online behaviours including drug and knife supply  
• The dangers of vaping   
• Menstrual and gynaecological health including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and heavy menstrual bleeding.  

What are the age limits?   

In primary school, we’ve set out that subjects such as the risks about online gaming, social media and scams should not be taught before year 3.   

Puberty shouldn’t be taught before year 4, whilst sex education shouldn’t be taught before year 5, in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth as part of the national curriculum for science.  

In secondary school, issues regarding sexual harassment shouldn’t be taught before year 7, direct references to suicide before year 8 and any explicit discussion of sexual activity before year 9.  

Do schools have to follow the guidance?  

Following the consultation, the guidance will be statutory, which means schools must follow it unless there are exceptional circumstances.   

There is some flexibility w ithin the age ratings, as schools will sometimes need to respond to questions from pupils about age-restricted content, if they come up earlier within their school community.   

In these circumstances, schools are instructed to make sure that teaching is limited to the essential facts without going into unnecessary details, and parents should be informed.  

When will schools start teaching this?  

School s will be able to use the guidance as soon as we publish the final version later this year.   

However, schools will need time to make changes to their curriculum, so we will allow an implementation period before the guidance comes into force.     

What can parents do with these resources once they have been shared?

This guidance has openness with parents at its heart. Parents are not able to veto curriculum content, but they should be able to see what their children are being taught, which gives them the opportunity to raise issues or concerns through the school’s own processes, if they want to.

Parents can also share copyrighted materials they have received from their school more widely under certain circumstances.

If they are not able to understand materials without assistance, parents can share the materials with translators to help them understand the content, on the basis that the material is not shared further.

Copyrighted material can also be shared under the law for so-called ‘fair dealing’ - for the purposes of quotation, criticism or review, which could include sharing for the purpose of making a complaint about the material.

This could consist of sharing with friends, families, faith leaders, lawyers, school organisations, governing bodies and trustees, local authorities, Ofsted and the media.  In each case, the sharing of the material must be proportionate and accompanied by an acknowledgment of the author and its ownership.

Under the same principle, parents can also share relevant extracts of materials with the general public, but except in cases where the material is very small, it is unlikely that it would be lawful to share the entirety of the material.

These principles would apply to any material which is being made available for teaching in schools, even if that material was provided subject to confidentiality restrictions.

Do all children have to learn RSHE?  

Parents still have the right to withdraw their child from sex education, but not from the essential content covered in relationships educatio n.  

You may also be interested in:

• Education Secretary's letter to parents: You have the right to see RSHE lesson material
• Sex education: What is RSHE and can parents access curriculum materials?
• What do children and young people learn in relationship, sex and health education

Tags: age ratings , Gender , Relationships and Sex Education , RSHE , sex ed , Sex education

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date, comments and moderation policy.