Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality 2000
Kenya, 2000
Get Microdata
Reference ID
KEN_2000_SACMEQ-II_v01_M
Producer(s)
Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality
Created on
Sep 05, 2014
Last modified
Mar 29, 2019
Page views
1181
Downloads
334
Identification
Survey ID number
KEN_2000_SACMEQ-II_v01_M
Title
Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality 2000
Subtitle
SACMEQ II Project
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Kenya | KEN |
Study type
Socio-Economic/Monitoring Survey [hh/sems]
Series Information
The origins of the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) date back to 1991, the year when several Ministries of Education in Eastern and Southern Africa started working closely with UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) on the implementation of integrated educational policy research and training programmes.
In 1995 these Ministries of Education formalized their collaboration by establishing a network that is widely known as SACMEQ. Fifteen Ministries are now members of SACMEQ: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) undertook three large-scale, cross-national studies of the quality of education: SACMEQ I (1995-1999, reading) with seven ministries; SACMEQ II (2000-2004, reading and mathematics) with 14 ministries; and SACMEQ III (2006-2010, reading, mathematics, and HIV and AIDS knowledge) with 15 ministries.
In 1995 these Ministries of Education formalized their collaboration by establishing a network that is widely known as SACMEQ. Fifteen Ministries are now members of SACMEQ: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) undertook three large-scale, cross-national studies of the quality of education: SACMEQ I (1995-1999, reading) with seven ministries; SACMEQ II (2000-2004, reading and mathematics) with 14 ministries; and SACMEQ III (2006-2010, reading, mathematics, and HIV and AIDS knowledge) with 15 ministries.
Abstract
In 1991 the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and a number of Ministries of Education in Southern and Eastern Africa began to work together in order to address training and research needs in Education. The focus for this work was on establishing long-term strategies for building the capacity of educational planners to monitor and evaluate the quality of their basic education systems. The first two educational policy research projects undertaken by SACMEQ (widely known as "SACMEQ I" and "SACMEQ II") were designed to provide detailed information that could be used to guide planning decisions aimed at improving the quality of education in primary school systems.
During 1995-1998 seven Ministries of Education participated in the SACMEQ I Project. The SACMEQ II Project commenced in 1998 and the surveys of schools, involving 14 Ministries of Education, took place between 2000 and 2004. The survey was undertaken in schools in Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zanzibar.
Moving from the SACMEQ I Project (covering around 1100 schools and 20,000 pupils) to the SACMEQ II Project (covering around 2500 schools and 45,000 pupils) resulted in a major increase in the scale and complexity of SACMEQ's research and training programmes.
SACMEQ's mission is to:
a) Expand opportunities for educational planners to gain the technical skills required to monitor and evaluate the quality of their education systems; and
b) Generate information that can be used by decision-makers to plan and improve the quality of education.
During 1995-1998 seven Ministries of Education participated in the SACMEQ I Project. The SACMEQ II Project commenced in 1998 and the surveys of schools, involving 14 Ministries of Education, took place between 2000 and 2004. The survey was undertaken in schools in Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zanzibar.
Moving from the SACMEQ I Project (covering around 1100 schools and 20,000 pupils) to the SACMEQ II Project (covering around 2500 schools and 45,000 pupils) resulted in a major increase in the scale and complexity of SACMEQ's research and training programmes.
SACMEQ's mission is to:
a) Expand opportunities for educational planners to gain the technical skills required to monitor and evaluate the quality of their education systems; and
b) Generate information that can be used by decision-makers to plan and improve the quality of education.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
- Pupils
- Teachers
- Schools
- Teachers
- Schools
Version
Version Description
v01: Edited data for licensed distribution
Scope
Notes
Data was collected on pupils' home backgrounds and their school life; classrooms, teaching practices, teachers' working conditions, and teacher housing; information about school head; enrolments, school buildings and facilities, and school management.
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
National coverage
Universe
The target population for SACMEQ's Initial Project was defined as "all pupils at the Grade 6 level in 1995 who were attending registered government or non-government schools". Grade 6 was chosen because it was the grade level where the basics of reading literacy were expected to have been acquired.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality | International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization | Funding the project |
| Italian Government | Funding the project |
| Netherlands Government | Funding the project |
| Ministries of Education, Science and Technology, Kenya | Funding the project |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
Sampling
Sample designs in the field of education are usually prepared amid a network of competing constraints. These designs need to adhere to established survey sampling theory and, at the same time, give due recognition to the financial, administrative, and socio-political settings in which they are to be applied. The "best" sample design for a particular project is one that provides levels of sampling accuracy that are acceptable in terms of the main aims of the project, while simultaneously limiting cost, logistic, and procedural demands to manageable levels. The major constraints that were established prior to the preparation of the sample designs for the SACMEQ II Project have been listed below.
Target Population: The target population definitions should focus on Grade 6 pupils attending registered mainstream government or non-government schools. In addition, the defined target population should be constructed by excluding no more than 5 percent of pupils from the desired target population.
Bias Control: The sampling should conform to the accepted rules of scientific probability sampling. That is, the members of the defined target population should have a known and non-zero probability of selection into the sample so that any potential for bias in sample estimates due to variations from "epsem sampling" (equal probability of selection method) may be addressed through the use of appropriate sampling weights.
Sampling Errors: The sample estimates for the main criterion variables should conform to the sampling accuracy requirements set down by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. That is, the standard error of sampling
Sample Design Framework
The SACMEQ II sample designs were prepared by using a specialized software system (SAMDEM) that enabled the high-speed generation of a range of sampling options which satisfied the statistical accuracy constraints set down for the project, and at the same time also addressed the logistical and financial realities of each country.
In order to establish the number of schools and pupils that were required to satisfy SACMEQ's sampling accuracy standards, it was necessary to know the magnitude of (a) the minimum cluster size, and (b) the coefficient of intraclass correlation.
Minimum Cluster Size
The value of the minimum cluster size referred to the smallest number of pupils within a school that would be included in the data collection. It was important that this was set at a level that permitted test administration within schools to be carried out in an environment that ensured that: (i) the test administrator was able to conduct the testing according to the standardized procedures specified for the study, (ii) the sample members were comfortable and unlikely to be distracted, (iii) the sample members responded carefully and independently to the tests and questionnaires, and (iv) the testing did not place an excessive administrative burden on schools.
After a consideration of these four constraints the SACMEQ National Research Coordinators decided to limit the sample in each selected school to a simple random sample of 20 pupils.
Note: Details of sampling design procedures are presented in the "Kenya Working Report".
Sample designs in the field of education are usually prepared amid a network of competing constraints. These designs need to adhere to established survey sampling theory and, at the same time, give due recognition to the financial, administrative, and socio-political settings in which they are to be applied. The "best" sample design for a particular project is one that provides levels of sampling accuracy that are acceptable in terms of the main aims of the project, while simultaneously limiting cost, logistic, and procedural demands to manageable levels. The major constraints that were established prior to the preparation of the sample designs for the SACMEQ II Project have been listed below.
Target Population: The target population definitions should focus on Grade 6 pupils attending registered mainstream government or non-government schools. In addition, the defined target population should be constructed by excluding no more than 5 percent of pupils from the desired target population.
Bias Control: The sampling should conform to the accepted rules of scientific probability sampling. That is, the members of the defined target population should have a known and non-zero probability of selection into the sample so that any potential for bias in sample estimates due to variations from "epsem sampling" (equal probability of selection method) may be addressed through the use of appropriate sampling weights.
Sampling Errors: The sample estimates for the main criterion variables should conform to the sampling accuracy requirements set down by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. That is, the standard error of sampling
Sample Design Framework
The SACMEQ II sample designs were prepared by using a specialized software system (SAMDEM) that enabled the high-speed generation of a range of sampling options which satisfied the statistical accuracy constraints set down for the project, and at the same time also addressed the logistical and financial realities of each country.
In order to establish the number of schools and pupils that were required to satisfy SACMEQ's sampling accuracy standards, it was necessary to know the magnitude of (a) the minimum cluster size, and (b) the coefficient of intraclass correlation.
Minimum Cluster Size
The value of the minimum cluster size referred to the smallest number of pupils within a school that would be included in the data collection. It was important that this was set at a level that permitted test administration within schools to be carried out in an environment that ensured that: (i) the test administrator was able to conduct the testing according to the standardized procedures specified for the study, (ii) the sample members were comfortable and unlikely to be distracted, (iii) the sample members responded carefully and independently to the tests and questionnaires, and (iv) the testing did not place an excessive administrative burden on schools.
After a consideration of these four constraints the SACMEQ National Research Coordinators decided to limit the sample in each selected school to a simple random sample of 20 pupils.
Note: Details of sampling design procedures are presented in the "Kenya Working Report".
Response Rate
Response rates for pupils and schools respectively were 98 percent and 100 percent.
Weighting
The calculation of sampling weights could only be conducted after all files had been cleaned and merged. Sampling weights were used to adjust for missing data and for variations in probabilities of selection that arose from the application of stratified multi-stage sample designs. There were also certain country-specific aspects of the sampling procedures, and these had to be reflected in the calculation of sampling weights.
Two forms of sampling weights were prepared for the SACMEQ II Project. The first sampling weight (RF2) was the inverse of the probability of selecting a pupil into the sample. These "raising factors" were equal to the number of pupils in the defined target population that were "represented by a single pupil" in the sample. The second sampling weight (pweight2) was obtained by multiplying the raising factors by a constant so that the sum of the sampling weights was equal to the achieved sample size.
Note: Details of sampling weights calculation is presented in the "Kenya Working Report".
Two forms of sampling weights were prepared for the SACMEQ II Project. The first sampling weight (RF2) was the inverse of the probability of selecting a pupil into the sample. These "raising factors" were equal to the number of pupils in the defined target population that were "represented by a single pupil" in the sample. The second sampling weight (pweight2) was obtained by multiplying the raising factors by a constant so that the sum of the sampling weights was equal to the achieved sample size.
Note: Details of sampling weights calculation is presented in the "Kenya Working Report".
Survey instrument
Questionnaires
The data collection for SACMEQ’s Initial Project took place in October 1995 and involved the administration of questionnaires to pupils, teachers, and school heads.
The pupil questionnaire contained questions about the pupils’ home backgrounds and their school life; the teacher questionnaire asked about classrooms, teaching practices, working conditions, and teacher housing; and the school head questionnaire collected information about teachers, enrolments, buildings, facilities, and management. A reading literacy test was also given to the pupils. The test was based on items that were selected after a trial-testing programme had been completed.
The pupil questionnaire contained questions about the pupils’ home backgrounds and their school life; the teacher questionnaire asked about classrooms, teaching practices, working conditions, and teacher housing; and the school head questionnaire collected information about teachers, enrolments, buildings, facilities, and management. A reading literacy test was also given to the pupils. The test was based on items that were selected after a trial-testing programme had been completed.
Data collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-20 | 2000-09-29 |
Data Collection Notes
The main data collection took place between 20-29 September 2000. Data collection manuals had been written indicating what the data collectors had to do from when they entered a school to when they returned the package of instruments to the regional office. A team of 9 data collection team leaders were centrally trained in Gaborone to ensure uniformity in data collection throughout the country. The training of data collectors included actual data collection in a few schools in Gaborone that were not included in the SACMEQ II sample.
The training was repeated in the regions for more familiarity with the data collection manual and for the benefit of the assistant data collectors. The schools were notified about the data collection several weeks in advance. When the data collectors arrived at the school, they had to meet with the school head to verify the details of the school and what was required. They had to ensure a testing room with 20 well-placed sitting and writing places was available. They then had to further ensure that the class registers were available and that the selected learners were present.
Data were collected on two consecutive days. On the first day, data collectors administered the learner questionnaire and reading test in addition to the school head questionnaire as well as the teacher questionnaire and teacher test. Upon leaving the school, data collectors had to check all the information collected, before returning to the school the following day for the administration of the learner mathematics test.
The training was repeated in the regions for more familiarity with the data collection manual and for the benefit of the assistant data collectors. The schools were notified about the data collection several weeks in advance. When the data collectors arrived at the school, they had to meet with the school head to verify the details of the school and what was required. They had to ensure a testing room with 20 well-placed sitting and writing places was available. They then had to further ensure that the class registers were available and that the selected learners were present.
Data were collected on two consecutive days. On the first day, data collectors administered the learner questionnaire and reading test in addition to the school head questionnaire as well as the teacher questionnaire and teacher test. Upon leaving the school, data collectors had to check all the information collected, before returning to the school the following day for the administration of the learner mathematics test.
Data processing
Data Editing
Data Checking and Data Entry
Data preparation commenced soon after the main data collection was completed. The NRCs had to organize the safe return of all materials to the Ministry of Education where the data collection instruments could be checked, entered into computers, and then "cleaned" to remove errors prior to data analysis. The data-checking involved the "hand editing" of data collection instruments by a team of trained staff. They were required to check that: (i) all questionnaires, tests, and forms had arrived back from the sample schools, (ii) the identification numbers on all instruments were complete and accurate, and (iii) certain logical linkages between questions made sense (for example, the two questions to school heads concerning "Do you have a school library?" and "How many books do you have in your school library?").
The next step was the entry of data into computers using the WINDEM software. A team of 5-10 staff normally undertook this work. In some cases the data were "double entered" in order to monitor accuracy.
The numbers of keystrokes required to enter one copy of each data collection instrument were as follows: pupil questionnaire: 150; pupil reading test: 85; pupil mathematics test: 65; teacher questionnaire: 587; teacher reading test: 51; teacher mathematics test: 43; school head questionnaire: 319; school form: 58; and pupil name form: 51.
This information can be re-expressed to give the total number of keystrokes for the whole body of data for one country by multiplying the above figures by the number of instruments in the final data collection. In the case of Namibia the total number of keystrokes was as follows: pupil questionnaire: 762,600; pupil reading test: 429,080; pupil mathematics test: 328,250; teacher questionnaire: 358,657; teacher reading test: 15,504; teacher mathematics test: 14,061; school head questionnaire: 86,130; school form: 39,150; and pupil name form: 259,284. That is, a total of 2,292,716 keystrokes were required to enter all of the data for Namibia.
An experienced keyboard operator can work at a rate of 25 keystrokes per minute (working from multi-paged questionnaires and stopping occasionally to clarify individual questionnaire entries with the supervisor). Assuming that this kind of work rate could be sustained for, say, around a maximum of six hours per day, then the whole data entry operation for Namibia was estimated to amount to around 255 person days of data entry work This implied an estimated five weeks of work for the 10 person data entry team that operated in Namibia.
The Seychelles data collection was much smaller than Namibia's - with an estimated total of only 68 person days of data entry required. However, this implied an estimated seven weeks of work because the Seychelles only had access to a two-person data entry team.
There was a great deal of variation in the delivery dates for the initial versions of the computer-stored SACMEQ II data files. This occurred because of different testing dates and also because of different amounts of time required to complete entry of data into computers
Data Cleaning
The NRCs received written instructions and follow-up support from IIEP staff in the basic steps of data cleaning using the WINDEM software. This permitted the NRCs to (i) identify major errors in the sequence of identification numbers, (ii) cross-check identification numbers across files (for example, to ensure that all pupils were linked with their own reading and mathematics teachers), (iii) ensure that all schools listed on the original sampling frame also had valid data collection instruments and vice-versa, (iv) check for "wild codes" that occurred when some variables had values that fell outside pre-specified reasonable limits, and (v) validate that variables used as linkage devices in later file merges were available and accurate.
A second phase of data preparation directed efforts towards the identification and correction of "wild codes" (which refer to data values that that fall outside credible limits), and "inconsistencies" (which refer to different responses to the same, or related, questions). There were also some errors in the identification codes for teachers that needed to be corrected before data could be merged.
During 2002 a supplementary training programme was prepared and delivered to all countries via the Internet. This training led each SACMEQ Research Team step-by-step through the required data cleaning procedures - with the NRCs supervising "hands-on" data cleaning activities and IIEP staff occasionally using advanced software systems to validate the quality of the work involved in each data-cleaning step.
This resulted in a "cyclical" process whereby data files were cleaned by the NRC and then emailed to the IIEP for checking and then emailed back to the NRC for further cleaning.
The number of cycles required to complete all of the data cleaning ranged from lows of 5 and 9 cycles in the Seychelles and Namibia, respectively, to highs of 27 and 31 cycles in Zanzibar and Uganda, respectively. The time required to complete the all of the data cleaning took from lows of 4 and 9 months in the Seychelles and Namibia, respectively, to highs of 23 and 24 months in Uganda and Mozambique, respectively.
Data preparation commenced soon after the main data collection was completed. The NRCs had to organize the safe return of all materials to the Ministry of Education where the data collection instruments could be checked, entered into computers, and then "cleaned" to remove errors prior to data analysis. The data-checking involved the "hand editing" of data collection instruments by a team of trained staff. They were required to check that: (i) all questionnaires, tests, and forms had arrived back from the sample schools, (ii) the identification numbers on all instruments were complete and accurate, and (iii) certain logical linkages between questions made sense (for example, the two questions to school heads concerning "Do you have a school library?" and "How many books do you have in your school library?").
The next step was the entry of data into computers using the WINDEM software. A team of 5-10 staff normally undertook this work. In some cases the data were "double entered" in order to monitor accuracy.
The numbers of keystrokes required to enter one copy of each data collection instrument were as follows: pupil questionnaire: 150; pupil reading test: 85; pupil mathematics test: 65; teacher questionnaire: 587; teacher reading test: 51; teacher mathematics test: 43; school head questionnaire: 319; school form: 58; and pupil name form: 51.
This information can be re-expressed to give the total number of keystrokes for the whole body of data for one country by multiplying the above figures by the number of instruments in the final data collection. In the case of Namibia the total number of keystrokes was as follows: pupil questionnaire: 762,600; pupil reading test: 429,080; pupil mathematics test: 328,250; teacher questionnaire: 358,657; teacher reading test: 15,504; teacher mathematics test: 14,061; school head questionnaire: 86,130; school form: 39,150; and pupil name form: 259,284. That is, a total of 2,292,716 keystrokes were required to enter all of the data for Namibia.
An experienced keyboard operator can work at a rate of 25 keystrokes per minute (working from multi-paged questionnaires and stopping occasionally to clarify individual questionnaire entries with the supervisor). Assuming that this kind of work rate could be sustained for, say, around a maximum of six hours per day, then the whole data entry operation for Namibia was estimated to amount to around 255 person days of data entry work This implied an estimated five weeks of work for the 10 person data entry team that operated in Namibia.
The Seychelles data collection was much smaller than Namibia's - with an estimated total of only 68 person days of data entry required. However, this implied an estimated seven weeks of work because the Seychelles only had access to a two-person data entry team.
There was a great deal of variation in the delivery dates for the initial versions of the computer-stored SACMEQ II data files. This occurred because of different testing dates and also because of different amounts of time required to complete entry of data into computers
Data Cleaning
The NRCs received written instructions and follow-up support from IIEP staff in the basic steps of data cleaning using the WINDEM software. This permitted the NRCs to (i) identify major errors in the sequence of identification numbers, (ii) cross-check identification numbers across files (for example, to ensure that all pupils were linked with their own reading and mathematics teachers), (iii) ensure that all schools listed on the original sampling frame also had valid data collection instruments and vice-versa, (iv) check for "wild codes" that occurred when some variables had values that fell outside pre-specified reasonable limits, and (v) validate that variables used as linkage devices in later file merges were available and accurate.
A second phase of data preparation directed efforts towards the identification and correction of "wild codes" (which refer to data values that that fall outside credible limits), and "inconsistencies" (which refer to different responses to the same, or related, questions). There were also some errors in the identification codes for teachers that needed to be corrected before data could be merged.
During 2002 a supplementary training programme was prepared and delivered to all countries via the Internet. This training led each SACMEQ Research Team step-by-step through the required data cleaning procedures - with the NRCs supervising "hands-on" data cleaning activities and IIEP staff occasionally using advanced software systems to validate the quality of the work involved in each data-cleaning step.
This resulted in a "cyclical" process whereby data files were cleaned by the NRC and then emailed to the IIEP for checking and then emailed back to the NRC for further cleaning.
The number of cycles required to complete all of the data cleaning ranged from lows of 5 and 9 cycles in the Seychelles and Namibia, respectively, to highs of 27 and 31 cycles in Zanzibar and Uganda, respectively. The time required to complete the all of the data cleaning took from lows of 4 and 9 months in the Seychelles and Namibia, respectively, to highs of 23 and 24 months in Uganda and Mozambique, respectively.
Data appraisal
Estimates of Sampling Error
The sample designs employed in the SACMEQ Projects departed markedly from the usual "textbook model" of simple random sampling. This departure demanded that special steps be taken in order to calculate "sampling errors" (that is, measures of the stability of sample estimates of population characteristics).
In the report (Kenya Working Report) a brief overview of various aspects of the general concept of "sampling error" has been presented. This has included a discussion of notions of "design effect", "the effective sample size", and the "Jackknife procedure" for estimating sampling errors.
In the report (Kenya Working Report) a brief overview of various aspects of the general concept of "sampling error" has been presented. This has included a discussion of notions of "design effect", "the effective sample size", and the "Jackknife procedure" for estimating sampling errors.
access_policy
Access authority
Access conditions
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE OF THE SACMEQ DATA ARCHIVE
1.0 Introduction
The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) Co-ordinating Centre (SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>) has produced a data archive containing all information collected for SACMEQ's first three educational policy research projects (SACMEQ I, SACMEQ II, and SACMEQ III). This archive is now available online on the SACMEQ website so as to give bona fide researchers and students online access to SACMEQ data and documents.
The SACMEQ data sets have been developed at great cost and with the application of stringent quality controls. It is being made available to eligible users because it has a great potential to contribute to educational policy development beyond what has already been achieved in this respect through the reports written by the National Research Co-ordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s) and Deputy National Research Coordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s). It is expected that many researchers and students will wish to use the Data Archive for research, publications, and/or training purposes.
The Terms and Conditions serve two purposes. Firstly, they provide interested applicants with guidelines on how to access this valuable information resource. Secondly, they are intended to safeguard against the danger of users being unaware of the complexities of the data collection process and consequently arriving at misinterpretations that could lead to incorrect conclusions.
2.0 How can the user gain such access?
In order to obtain SACMEQ Data Archive for any of the SACMEQ school systems, the applicant should follow these steps:
2.1 Read and Agree to these "Terms and Conditions for the Use of the SACMEQ Data Archive."
2.2 Complete an online application form.
3.0 What rules govern the use of the SACMEQ data archive?
3.1 The Data Archive is the outcome of expensive and time-consuming activities of the staff of the represented Ministries of Education spread over many years. For this reason, the SACMEQ Ministries of Education described in the Data Archive should:
3.1.1 be notified by the SACMEQ SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> of any request for data;
3.1.2 have an opportunity to review reports based on the data archive so as to correct any gross errors before they are published; and
3.1.3 satisfy themselves that the data have been used in such a manner that they contribute positively to the development of relevant education policies in relevant SACMEQ member countries.
3.2 It is the National Research Coordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s) and Deputy National Research
Coordinators (DNRCs) who have spearheaded the collection and compilation of SACMEQ data. In acknowledgment of their efforts, the applicant(s) will be required to invite the relevant country's National Research Coordinator to participate in the study associated with the use of the data. Where an individual other than the NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> or DNRC is co-opted, the relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> and DNRC shall be given the first right of refusal.
3.3 This provision does not apply in situations where the SACMEQ Data Archive is used purely for purposes of individual academic research by a student, and where the results are not intended for publication.
3.4 All relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s and DNRCs will be informed by the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> about the recipients of the Data Archive.
3.5 SACMEQ provides the SACMEQ Data Archive to applicants on the basis of the intended use stated in the application. The applicant, therefore, should not use the data for any purpose other than the one stated in the application. Should the applicant(s) wish to use the data for a purpose other than that stated in the agreement, then he/she/they must first secure the written approval of SACMEQ before he/she/they proceed to do so.
3.6 SACMEQ data are provided for the sole and exclusive use of the applicant specified in the agreement. The successful applicant should, therefore, not share the SACMEQ Data Archive with, or pass it on to, any other unauthorized person(s).
3.7 The authorized user shall take responsibility for the safe custody of the SACMEQ Data Archive and also take reasonable steps to ensure that no unauthorized persons gain access to it.
3.8 The authorized user shall give due credit to SACMEQ for providing the Data Archive by providing written acknowledgement of this in any publication emanating from their use.
3.9 As the Data Archive remains the property of the SACMEQ, no other person(s), including the successful applicants or the member Ministry, shall re-distribute or offer for sale the SACMEQ Data Archive.
3.10 All reports based on the SACMEQ Data Archive have to secure the written approval of the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> prior to the publication in order to confirm compliance to our terms and conditions, and also to ensure that there is no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the data.
3.11 Once authorization has been granted to access the archive, you will see a link on the website which will take you to the Data Archive.
3.12 All relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s will be informed by the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> about the recipients of the SACMEQ Data Archive.
3.13 Full acknowledgement of the source of the data (including reference to the SACMEQ Data Archive) must be given whenever the data are used.
3.14 A copy of any published article or report based on the SACMEQ Data Archive must be provided free of charge to (a) the SACMEQ Co-ordinating Centre, and (b) the Ministry(ies) of Education from whose data the report has been generated.
1.0 Introduction
The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) Co-ordinating Centre (SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>) has produced a data archive containing all information collected for SACMEQ's first three educational policy research projects (SACMEQ I, SACMEQ II, and SACMEQ III). This archive is now available online on the SACMEQ website so as to give bona fide researchers and students online access to SACMEQ data and documents.
The SACMEQ data sets have been developed at great cost and with the application of stringent quality controls. It is being made available to eligible users because it has a great potential to contribute to educational policy development beyond what has already been achieved in this respect through the reports written by the National Research Co-ordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s) and Deputy National Research Coordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s). It is expected that many researchers and students will wish to use the Data Archive for research, publications, and/or training purposes.
The Terms and Conditions serve two purposes. Firstly, they provide interested applicants with guidelines on how to access this valuable information resource. Secondly, they are intended to safeguard against the danger of users being unaware of the complexities of the data collection process and consequently arriving at misinterpretations that could lead to incorrect conclusions.
2.0 How can the user gain such access?
In order to obtain SACMEQ Data Archive for any of the SACMEQ school systems, the applicant should follow these steps:
2.1 Read and Agree to these "Terms and Conditions for the Use of the SACMEQ Data Archive."
2.2 Complete an online application form.
3.0 What rules govern the use of the SACMEQ data archive?
3.1 The Data Archive is the outcome of expensive and time-consuming activities of the staff of the represented Ministries of Education spread over many years. For this reason, the SACMEQ Ministries of Education described in the Data Archive should:
3.1.1 be notified by the SACMEQ SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> of any request for data;
3.1.2 have an opportunity to review reports based on the data archive so as to correct any gross errors before they are published; and
3.1.3 satisfy themselves that the data have been used in such a manner that they contribute positively to the development of relevant education policies in relevant SACMEQ member countries.
3.2 It is the National Research Coordinators (NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s) and Deputy National Research
Coordinators (DNRCs) who have spearheaded the collection and compilation of SACMEQ data. In acknowledgment of their efforts, the applicant(s) will be required to invite the relevant country's National Research Coordinator to participate in the study associated with the use of the data. Where an individual other than the NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> or DNRC is co-opted, the relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> and DNRC shall be given the first right of refusal.
3.3 This provision does not apply in situations where the SACMEQ Data Archive is used purely for purposes of individual academic research by a student, and where the results are not intended for publication.
3.4 All relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s and DNRCs will be informed by the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> about the recipients of the Data Archive.
3.5 SACMEQ provides the SACMEQ Data Archive to applicants on the basis of the intended use stated in the application. The applicant, therefore, should not use the data for any purpose other than the one stated in the application. Should the applicant(s) wish to use the data for a purpose other than that stated in the agreement, then he/she/they must first secure the written approval of SACMEQ before he/she/they proceed to do so.
3.6 SACMEQ data are provided for the sole and exclusive use of the applicant specified in the agreement. The successful applicant should, therefore, not share the SACMEQ Data Archive with, or pass it on to, any other unauthorized person(s).
3.7 The authorized user shall take responsibility for the safe custody of the SACMEQ Data Archive and also take reasonable steps to ensure that no unauthorized persons gain access to it.
3.8 The authorized user shall give due credit to SACMEQ for providing the Data Archive by providing written acknowledgement of this in any publication emanating from their use.
3.9 As the Data Archive remains the property of the SACMEQ, no other person(s), including the successful applicants or the member Ministry, shall re-distribute or offer for sale the SACMEQ Data Archive.
3.10 All reports based on the SACMEQ Data Archive have to secure the written approval of the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> prior to the publication in order to confirm compliance to our terms and conditions, and also to ensure that there is no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the data.
3.11 Once authorization has been granted to access the archive, you will see a link on the website which will take you to the Data Archive.
3.12 All relevant NRC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops>s will be informed by the SCC <http://www.sacmeq.org/_legal/accept_new?destination=training-workshops> about the recipients of the SACMEQ Data Archive.
3.13 Full acknowledgement of the source of the data (including reference to the SACMEQ Data Archive) must be given whenever the data are used.
3.14 A copy of any published article or report based on the SACMEQ Data Archive must be provided free of charge to (a) the SACMEQ Co-ordinating Centre, and (b) the Ministry(ies) of Education from whose data the report has been generated.
Citation requirements
Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality. SACMEQ II Project 2000-2004 [dataset]. Version 4. Harare: SACMEQ [producer], 2004. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO [distributor], 2010.
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Contacts
Contacts
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_KEN_2000_SACMEQ-II_v01_M_WB
Producers
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Data Group | The World Bank | Metadata preparation |
Date of Metadata Production
2014-05-08
Metadata version
DDI Document version
Version 01 (May 2014)