ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

Table B.30.2: Allocation of teacher sample in ParaguaySchool Participation Status—Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementUrban—public 71 0 63 2 0 6Urban—private 9 0 9 0 0 0Urban—op (subsidized) 15 0 14 0 0 1Rural—public 51 0 42 6 0 3Rural—private 2 0 2 0 0 0Rural—op (subsidized) 2 0 1 0 0 1Total 150 0 131 8 0 11Note: 10 schools were regarded as non-participating because the within-school participation rate was below 50%.B.31. Poland• Special education schools and very small schools (fewer than 10 students in the targetgrade) were excluded at the school level.• Explicit stratification was performed by urbanization (rural, small town, medium-sizetown, big city), resulting in four explicit strata.• No implicit stratification was applied.Table B.31: Allocation of student sample and teacher sample in PolandSchool Participation Status—Student Survey and Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementRural 53 0 53 0 0 0Small town 31 0 31 0 0 0Medium-size town 31 0 31 0 0 0Big city 35 0 34 1 0 0Total 150 0 149 1 0 0B.32. Russian Federation• Very small schools (fewer than five students in the target grade), special needs schools, andevening schools were excluded at the school level.• A sample of 45 regions out of 86 was first sampled with PPS. The largest 16 regions weresampled with certainty. A sample of schools was then drawn within each region.• Explicit stratification was performed by region type (certainty, non-certainty). For a betteroverview, see Table B.32, which gives the school sample allocation for all 45 regions.• Implicit stratification was applied by school location (nine levels), giving a total of 229implicit strata.Appendices307