government education report

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

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

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, open recommendations, 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
• 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 2022

Two years after the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted education and led to significant setbacks for millions of learners, we are entering a new phase for the education sector. Schools have largely reopened and children and youth are eager to continue learning.

While the road to recovery is long, the global community has come together with a renewed sense of urgency. We are committed to ensuring students acquire foundational skills that are critical to future success—including literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional learning skills. We also are committed to partnering with local stakeholders to reimagine education systems that better serve ALL students, with resourcefulness, resilience, and creativity.

From pre-primary education to the early grades, and through the transition to upper primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, the United States (USG) must continue to build on promising approaches and support educators to utilize evidence-based teaching practices. Educators should have the tools, resources, and materials they need for instruction—in the languages they and their students can read and understand—with support provided throughout the educational process, particularly in the transition to national or official languages of instruction, remediation, accelerated, and catch-up learning situations for students whose education has been disrupted. We also need to increase the use of cost analysis as well as evidence-based assessment tools at the classroom, national, and international levels so that all stakeholders can track progress and areas for action in real time and pivot and adjust programming as necessary.

In addition to ensuring that learners acquire foundational skills in the early grades, the USG must also engage youth and support them to gain meaningful work opportunities. Globally, there are approximately 2.4 billion young people under the age of 30, and their contributions and leadership are critical to every major challenge we face today. From bolstering democracy to inclusive economic growth, youth engagement and partnership offers the development community a chance to better understand and meet the needs of the next generation. Young people must be viewed as partners and agents of their own development.

While much work remains, USG departments and agencies continue to build on our strong technical expertise and deliver highly effective education assistance. We are grateful for the generous support of Congress in pursuing these important objectives. In FY 2022, we collectively reached more than 32.7 million learners through programs designed to improve measurable learning outcomes and expand access to high-quality education for all.

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

21st century integrated digital experience act (idea) fy2023 report.

• April 2, 2024

Annual Tuberculosis Report to Congress, FY 2023

• January 23, 2024

Global Malnutrition Prevention and Treatment Act, 2023

• December 14, 2023

Small and Disadvantaged Business Training and Travel

• November 28, 2023

Share This Page

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.

U.S. Department of Education

Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Resources

“The investments proposed in President Biden’s new budget reflect this Administration’s deep belief in education as the foundation of all opportunity in America. It is my hope that Congress answers the President’s call for continued investments that will help schools, parents, families, and communities raise the bar in education by promoting academic excellence, accelerating learning, building safe and supportive school communities, and addressing major challenges like the educator shortage, the mental health and well-being of our students, and access to high-quality early learning programs. The President’s budget would also expand career-connected learning in our schools and provide more pathways to well-paying careers, as well as raise the bar for college affordability, inclusive student success, and driving more equitable outcomes in higher education.” ~ U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.

Overview of President’s Budget

In March 2023, the Biden-Harris administration released the fiscal year 2024 budget request [ PDF , 447K] for the U.S. Department of Education.

On this webpage, communities, families, educators, students, and other stakeholders will find resources connected to the President’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposal and additional details about how the Department of Education is working on their behalf.

2024 Education Budget Resources

Raise the bar: lead the world strategy.

Raise the Bar framework ( one-pager  [ PDF , 332KB].  En Español  [ PDF , 338KB])

2024 Education Budget Justifications

Congressional budget justifications on this page explain the mission of the Department of Education, outline the goals and objectives of the coming fiscal year, and provide data about the proposed budget.

State-by-State Education Impacts

This page shows how the budget proposal passed by Congressional Republicans would impact federal education funding. The page links to individual fact sheets that outline more specific details for each state.

• Posted in: Budgets Federal Aid Raise the Bar

How Do I Find...?

• Student loans, forgiveness
• Higher Education Rulemaking
• College accreditation
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• 1098, tax forms

Information About...

• Elevating Teaching
• Early Learning
• Engage Every Student
• Unlocking Career Success
• Cybersecurity

• 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 ...

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

‘We need you’: Solomon Islands’ support for US agency’s return revealed

Peace Corps found ‘overwhelming support and enthusiasm’ for return to Pacific island nation, report shows.

A United States development aid agency whose return to the Solomon Islands has been delayed for years without explanation found “overwhelming support and enthusiasm” for its work, with the Pacific island nation’s leader telling officials “We need you”, a previously unreleased report shows.

The Peace Corps’ findings bring into focus the agency’s unexplained failure to resume operations in the archipelago nearly five years after it announced its return amid jockeying for influence between the US and China.

Keep reading

Tesla profit plunges 55%, as shares bounce on plans for cheaper vehicles, indian gulf workers: the unlikely voters parties are wooing for elections, us senate passes ukraine, israel, taiwan bill; biden to sign on wednesday, photos: athens turns orange under north africa’s sahara dust clouds.

The “Solomon Islands Re-entry Assessment Report,” obtained by Al Jazeera via a freedom of information request, paints a picture of emphatic support for the agency resuming operations in the country after a two-decade absence, both among the local population and within the government.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare is quoted in the report telling Peace Corps representatives, “We need you,” while Attorney-General John Muria is quoted as saying the agency “really had a lasting impact on people and communities in Solomon Islands”.

“On the ground, the assessment team was welcomed openly and enthusiastically by the Government of Solomon Islands at all levels from the Prime Minister to the provincial level,” the agency said in the report.

“The team enjoyed support in equal measure from other development partners, non-governmental organisations, international volunteer organisations, service providers and vendors, former Peace Corps staff, and community members who were taught by Peace Corps Volunteers.”

The Peace Corps, which withdrew from the Solomon Islands in 2000 amid ethnic violence, commissioned the report to examine the feasibility of resuming operations in the country after receiving a formal invitation from Honiara to return in February 2019.

In August, the assessment team submitted its report recommending the agency’s return after concluding the Solomon Islands offered an “enabling environment in which Volunteers can have meaningful work and serve safely with the necessary medical care and logistical support”.

“From the Prime Minister and national and provincial government ministries to service providers, local community members, and former Peace Corps staff, the team was warmly welcomed and strongly encouraged to bring Volunteers back to the ‘Hapi Isles,’” the report said.

“Peace Corps has had a lasting impact in the country and our absence is noticeable, particularly in the education sector.”

The Peace Corps publicly announced the re-establishment of its Solomon Islands programme that October, with the first volunteers scheduled to arrive in mid-2021.

The Solomon Islands, located about 2,000 kilometres northeast of Australia, is one of the poorest countries in the Pacific, with its population suffering from limited access to high-quality education and healthcare.

While the Solomon Islands closed its borders for more than two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency’s ongoing absence and the current status of its planned return have not been publicly explained.

Although the Peace Corps temporarily suspended operations in the Pacific during the pandemic, its volunteers have since returned to neighbouring countries including Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

Other comparable agencies have also resumed work in the Solomon Islands, including the Australian Volunteers, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the Korea International Cooperation Agency, and New Zealand’s Volunteer Service Abroad.

The US Congress has allocated just $500 to the Peace Corps’ work in the archipelago for the fiscal year of 2024, suggesting there is little prospect of its imminent return.

In December, Al Jazeera reported that opposition politicians in the Solomon Islands and US observers suspected that Sogavare’s government was deliberately stalling the agency’s return to curry favour with China, which has made major inroads in the archipelago in recent years.

Sogavare severed ties with Taiwan in 2019 to recognise China and signed cooperation agreements with Beijing on security and policing in 2022 and last year, prompting alarm in the US, Australia and New Zealand.

Despite being one of the world’s smallest countries with a population of about 720,000 people, the Solomon Islands has become a focal point for the heated competition for influence between Washington and Beijing due to its strategic location in the Pacific.

The status of Honiara’s relations with Beijing is currently in the balance as Sogavare vies to form a government with opposition MPs after general elections this week that produced an inconclusive outcome.

Sogavare is seeking a fifth term in office, but he is being challenged by at least three opposition leaders, including Peter Kenilorea Jr, who has pledged to restore ties with Taipei.

The Peace Corps and the Solomon Islands government did not respond to requests for comment.

Catherine Ebert-Gray, who served as US ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu from 2016 to 2019, expressed hope the agency would be able to resume its work in the country.

“I am hopeful the next parliament and government will renew their interest in returning Peace Corps volunteers to rural villages to support the nation’s environmental, health and education plans,” Ebert-Gray told Al Jazeera.