Appendix 2
Focus Group
Location
13. Youth with disabilities from
Rural/ urban
Males/females
Average age and range
13. Panj District, Panji Bolo 13. Rural
13. 3 males/5 females
13. 16 (13–18)
14. Khovaling
14. Rural
14. 4 males/2 females
14. 17 (13–18)
15. Working youth
15. Kurgan-Tyube
15. Urban
15. 5 males/2 females
15. 18 (15 –22)
16. Young people living in villages
16. Sebiston
16. Rural
16. 7 males/2 females
16. 15 (13–18)
17. Students in village schools
17. Asht
17. Rural
17. 4 males/3 females
17. 17 (14–21)
18. Dushanbe City
18. Urban
18. 1 males/7 females
18. 19 (14–29)
19. Rural
19. 3 males/ 6 females
19. 15 (13–18)
20. Urban
20. 7 males/ 0 females
20. 20 (19 –23)
21. Rural
21. 0 males/10 females
21. 18 (14–22)
poor families
Town, Jamoat of Pani Bolo Town
14. Young people whose parents are unemployed
18. Students paying bribes at schools/ universities
19. Village Rudakoul, 19. Youth with unemployed parents
Kabadiyan District, Khatlon Oblast
20. Young people who learn computers
20. Kulob City
21. Youth from economically poor
21. Darband District,
families
Village Khoumdon
• Notes on interpreting survey results: Given the age range of the respondents, youth opinions about their experiences of education quality in each site span many years of the functioning of the education system. Unless otherwise noted, all respondents were asked to provide opinions about their current or most recent term in the formal school system in Kosovo, Georgia or Tajikistan. For example, youth currently in secondary school were asked to refer to their most recent term of enrolment. Those who had graduated, dropped out or suspended their education and were no longer enrolled in any education programme were asked to refer to their experience of the last term they were enrolled in the formal education system. Thus, the findings should be understood as representing the average of this range of experience. Note, however, as detailed in Tables A5, A6 and A7, most respondents surveyed state that they are currently enrolled in an education programme. Thus, in the majority, youth responses speak to their opinions of very recent experiences of education quality. For all statistical analyses, T-tests or Chi-square tests for statistical significance were run, with findings reported for significance at a 95 per cent level of confidence and higher. As outlined above, the sample was designed to be able to make inferences from the sample to the population with regard to settlement type (urban/rural) in each case. Thus, any finding of statistical significance can be generalized to the population with a high level of confidence for 13–24-year-olds according to: • Settlement type (urban/rural) For Kosovo, findings of statistical significance can also be generalized to the population with a high level of confidence for 13–24-year-olds according to: • Education system area (Kosovo education system/Republic of Serbia education system) Although the sample design does not support inferences about other subcategories of youth sampled at population level with a high level of confidence, statistical analyses were also run according to a range of other youth subgroups, including: • Sex (male/female); • Age group (younger/13–18 and older/19 –24); • Education level attained (Kosovo: primary, secondary, tertiary; Georgia and Tajikistan: primary/basic, secondary/primary and secondary professional, tertiary); 31 • Drop-out history (drop out/no drop out before secondary completion; for Tajikistan, this category also includes youth who have temporarily suspended attendance in primary/basic or secondary/professional school); • Employment (those with a job and those with no job); • Displaced (those ever or never displaced);
31
204
For simplicity, the shorthand primary/secondary/tertiary is used to represent these subgroups for Georgia and Tajikistan. See respective questionnaires in Appendix 3 for more detail on education levels in each case.
Demand for Education Innovation: Adolescent and youth perspectives on education quality in the CEECIS Region