Repetition Rate Indicator Needs Reviewing

[Ghislain Hachey]

Assign to Brian merely for discussions along with discussion about best way to display all flow rates (promotion, drop-out, repeating, transition). Then reassign to Ghislain.

I'm looking at putting up more stuff into the Indicators grid. I've noticed what seems to be incorrect calculation. Below is how you calculate Repetition Rate.

It seems to say that the repetition rate equals the repeaters divided by the enrolment of the previous year. In other words, it seem to say

Rep Rate for year t = Rep for year t / Enrol for year t-1

when in fact should it not be

Rep Rate for year t = Rep for year t+1 / Enrol for year t as shown below

Small sample dataset for Grade 10 as example show they are not equal.

Grade 10

Rep 2015: 5 Rep 2016: 6 Rep 2017: 7 Rep 2018: 8 Enrol 2015: 110 Enrol 2016: 115 Enrol 2017: 120 Enrol 2018: 112

Rep Rate 2017 = Rep 2018 / Enrol 2017 => 8 / 120 = 0.067 Rep Rate 2016 = Rep 2017 / Enrol 2016 => 7 / 115 = 0.060

Rep Rate 2017 = Rep 2017 / Enrol 2016 => 7 / 115 = 0.060 != 0.067 from above Rep Rate 2017

Furthermore, this is done on a education level when repetition rate is by grade as per UNESCO's technical guide. While it may be correct to present RR for a whole education level (using total enrols for that level and total repeaters for that level for two consecutive years) it does seem incorrect to say repeaters divided by enrolment of last year.

[Ghislain Hachey]

Consider this for the Indicators dashboard going forward?!

[Brian Lewis]

Your definition of the Repetition rate is correct - and this naming based on the first year, not the second, is common to all flow rate indicators.

My preference has always been , in order to remove any ambiguity - is always to present these indicators as ;e.g.:

Repetition Rate 2017=>18

( or Repetition Rate 16/17=>17/18 in the FSM naming model)

so that the source year is clearly identified.

When we are building a table of data to display in an indicator page, if we are looking at survey data collected from latest year, say 2018 , then we cannot yet know the Rep Rate 18=>19; because for that , we'd need the 2019 data.

However, completing the 2018 survey does allow us to get the Rep Rate 2017=>18, and that is why it is this number that is included in the facade for year 2018.

I think we could make an issue here to ensure that this standard naming for flow rates, is used everywhere these indicators are quoted.

[Ghislain Hachey]

@softwords yes I think explicitly clarifying all the flow indicators with this naming is a must as soon as possible.

[Brian Lewis]

Marking as resolved - create a new issue to review labelling where rep rate is quoted