ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

B.21. Latvia• Schools for mentally or functionally disabled students, part-time schools (students areusually older) and schools where the language of instruction is neither Latvian nor Russianwere excluded at the school level.• Explicit stratification was performed by urbanization (Riga, city, town, rural), resulting infour explicit strata.• Implicit stratification was applied by language (Latvian, Russian, mixed) and school type(basic, secondary), giving a total of 23 implicit strata.Table B.21.1: Allocation of student sample in LatviaSchool Participation Status—Student SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementRiga 42 0 39 1 0 2City 25 0 23 2 0 0Town 42 0 38 3 0 1Rural 51 0 41 3 0 7Total 160 0 141 9 0 10Table B.21.2: Allocation of teacher sample in LatviaSchool Participation Status—Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementRiga 42 0 38 1 0 3City 25 0 23 1 0 1Town 42 0 37 2 0 3Rural 51 0 41 3 0 7Total 160 0 139 7 0 14B.22. Liechtenstein• All schools were sampled.• All classrooms were sampled.• There were no school-level exclusions.• No explicit stratification was performed.• No implicit stratification was applied.Table B.22: Allocation of student sample and teacher sample in LiechtensteinSchool Participation Status—Student Survey and Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementNone 9 0 9 0 0 0Total 9 0 9 0 0 0Appendices301