28
procedure was applied to the teachers. Meanwhile, the head teachers were selected from the same schools of the selected children and teachers.
b. The community leaders were identified prior to the data collection. Advice from
UNICEF was sought to determine the key informants. c.
Similarly, the key informants from MOEC at the provincial and district levels were also identified and advice from UNICEF was also requested.
2.9 Final Sample
The numbers attained for the final sample in the data collection are presented in Table 2.6. The total number of schools that were assessed is 180, equally distributed across districts.
The number of head teachers planned to be interviewed was 180. However, the head teachers in one school in Mimika and one in Jayawijaya could not be interviewed as they were
unavailable at school during the three days of assessment. None of the senior teachers or assistant head teachers was also available to be interviewed then. Similarly, the number of
teachers that had been interviewed was also under the target. The total sample of teachers to be interviewed was 360, consisting of two teachers per school as the sample. However,
in some schools, there was only one teacher who taught early grade classes.
The number of students in the sample was also under the target. Each district was planned to have a sample size of 600 students. However, the real condition in the field revealed that not
all schools had 20 students from second and third grades. In addition, during the three days of assessment, not all students of the early grades came to school. In regards to the parents,
not all parents provided a positive response to be interviewed. Some of them did not want to participate in this study.
In terms of the number of school observations, all schools were observed by the assessors, and this resulted in 100 achievement. However, the classroom observations were under
target as in some cases there was only one classroom for both second and third grades.
29
Table 2.6: Final Sample
In terms of school profiles, 62 of the sampled schools were public schools, and the remaining 38 were private schools. Mimika was represented by the highest percentage of private
schools as compared to other districts. In contrast, Manokwari had the highest percentage of public schools.
Table 2.7: Final Sample, by School Types
Province District
Type of Respondent
School Head
Teacher Teacher Students
Parents School
Inventory Classroom
Inventory
Papua Biak
30 30
60 541
541 30
54 Jayapura
30 30
59 541
500 30
48 Mimika
30 29
58 459
369 30
53 Jayawijaya
30 29
55 520
448 30
55
Papua Barat Manokwari
30 30
51 395
366 30
49
Sorong 30
30 47
478 421
30 44
Total 180
178 330
2934 2645
180 303
Public School Private School All Papua
62 38
Biak 60
40 Jayapura
63 37
Mimika 53
47 Jayawijaya
70 30
Manokwari 87
13 Sorong
70 30
30
