Wikidata:Property proposal/education level

education level

This property was requested after extensive consultation with the Wikidata community and experts on ed tech, OER, global and national curriculum, education policy, and digitization. Over the two rounds of the consultation, we received input from 31 individuals representing various global perspectives and areas of expertise to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project.

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn

Description	This compares ISCED education level equivalence with the local education level name. This is different from educational stage (Q18189) and the proposed local Education level because it uses the ISCED Level standards.
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Example 1	secondary school (Q159334) → ISCED level 3 (Q113455800) Education level ISCED level 2 (Q113455799) edit 0 references add reference add value
Example 2	middle school (Q149566) → ISCED level 2 (Q113455799)
Example 3	primary school (Q9842) → ISCED level 1 (Q113455798)
Planned use	With this the user or machine should get values for both the education level of the subject at the ISCED level and local education level. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.
Wikidata project	Wikidata for Education

Motivation

This property will be used to specify the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) equivalent of a specific curriculum. As mentioned in the Local Educational Level property, countries have varied terminologies for specific educational levels that may be similar to or different from other educational levels in other jurisdictions. This property will be used to specify the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) equivalents of the various local educational levels. This will help in comparing various curriculums of various jurisdictions of similar local educational levels. Dnshitobu (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Sir Amugi (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The relationship should be expressed the other way around. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lectrician1 It makes a lot of sense, thanks for the suggession Dnshitobu (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Sir Amugi (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong supportHasslaebetch (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

* Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong support I believe that creating this property will improve the quality of statements and values added to items from the West African Region. —Sunkanmi12^✉️ 23:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong supportJemima2019 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Currently the examples do not make sense. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:A48C:CAB9:A6AB:8377 23:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking time to look at the property. Please could you be more specific or at least give a recommendation. We are ever ready to welcome your suggestions so that we can better the current state of the property request. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is better now. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:8054:85E8:3398:AFF1 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• How many planned use? If only 3, then the propserty should not be created imo. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:8054:85E8:3398:AFF1 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again for your comment. The ISCED levels are nine in all. We only used the 3 examples just to explain the concept. If you would want to read more literature on it, check here. You can also read more from the UNESCO website Dnshitobu (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose it should be possible to use an existing property like equivalent class (P1709), complies with (P5009), etc. Especially as it's for less than 10 items. Abbe98 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Abbe98 Thank you for taking time to review our request. We have had some discussions with the advisory and we are no longer going forward with this request. We truly appreciate the comments because it has helped shaped the project for good. Dnshitobu (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)