No. of schools in Region
Question 6: The following are some of the factors used in determining the post provisioning needs of schools. Rank them from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most
important factor. (Use a number once only)
Poverty grading of a school
Table 5.18: Frequency distribution showing rank order of poverty grading of a school.
49 36.6 36.6
24 17.9 54.5
32 23.9 78.4
18 13.4 91.8
11 8.2 100.0
134 100.0
one two three four five Total Valid
Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mean: 2.39 Overall Mean Ranking: 2
Figure 5.14: Bar graph showing rank order of poverty grading of a school.
Poverty grading of a school
five four
three two
one
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
8 13
24
18 37
With regard to the factor poverty grading of a school, the majority of the respondents, namely 73 constituting 55%, considered the poverty grading of a school an important factor by either ranking it one or two from the five factors/variables listed. The overall mean ranking of this factor was 2.
Table 5.19: T-test for equality of means between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in terms of the factor poverty grading of a school.
72 2.36
62 2.42
classification of school advantaged
disadvantaged factor - poverty
grading of a school
N Mean
-.254 132 .800 -.06
Equal variances assumed factor - poverty
grading of a school
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference t-test for Equality of Means
A computation of the independent samples t-test indicates that the 72 respondents from advantaged schools had mean of 2.36, the 62 respondents from disadvantaged schools had a mean of 2.42, and the means do not differ significantly at the 5% level of significance. It can therefore not be presumed that respondents from the advantaged school cohort considered this factor a significantly more important factor than respondents from the disadvantaged school cohort and vice-versa.
Need to promote particular subjects/learning areas
Table 5.20: Frequency distribution showing the ranking of the factor the need to promote particular subjects/learning areas in schools.
27 20.1 20.1
39 29.1 49.3
38 28.4 77.6
22 16.4 94.0
8 6.0 100.0
134 100.0
one two three four five Total Valid
Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mean: 2.59 Overall Mean Ranking: 3
Figure 5.15: Bar graph depicting ranking in terms of the need to promote particular subjects/learning areas in schools.
Need to promote subjects/learning areas
five four
three two
one
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
6 16
29 28
20
A substantial number of respondents ranked this factor either two (29%) or three (28%).
Overall, the average mean ranking of this factor was three compared to the other four factors/variables. On closer scrutiny, a different picture emerges when one considers the responses of the respondents from advantaged and disadvantaged schools separately.
Table 5.21: T-test for equality of means between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in terms of the factor the need to promote subjects/learning areas.
72 2.86
62 2.27
classification of school advantaged
disadvantaged factor - need to promote
subjects/learning areas
N Mean
3.012 132 .003 .59
Equal variances assumed factor - need to promote
subjects/learning areas
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference t-test for equality of means
A computation of the independent samples t-test indicates that the 72 respondents from the advantaged schools had mean of 2.86, the 62 respondents from disadvantaged schools had a mean of 2.27, and the means differ significantly at the 5% level of significance.
This would suggest that on average the respondents from the disadvantaged school grouping ranked this factor significantly higher than the respondents from the advantaged school cohort.
Maximum ideal class size of specific subjects/learning areas
Table 5.22: Frequency distribution showing ranking of the factor maximum ideal class size of specific subjects/learning areas.
45 33.6 33.6
45 33.6 67.2
25 18.7 85.8
11 8.2 94.0
8 6.0 100.0
134 100.0
one two three four five Total Valid
Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mean: 2.19 Overall Mean Ranking: 1
Figure 5.16: Bar graph depicting ranking of the factor maximum ideal class size of specific subjects/learning areas.
Maximum ideal class size of subjects/learning areas
five four
three two
one
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
6 8
19 34
34
The class size for the different subjects/learning areas is considered a very important factor by the respondents. Overall, 90 respondents constituting 68% of the total number of respondents ranked this factor either one or two. In terms of the overall mean ranking, this factor was ranked one in comparison to the other four factors/variables.
Table 5.23: T-test for equality of means between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in terms of the factor the maximum ideal class size of subjects/learning areas.
72 1.97
62 2.45
classification of school advantaged
disadvantaged factor - maximum ideal
class size of
subjects/learning areas
N Mean
-2.415 132 .017 -.48
Equal variances assumed factor - maximum ideal
class size of
subjects/learning areas
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference t-test for Equality of Means
A computation of the independent samples t-test indicates that the 72 respondents from advantaged schools had mean of 1.97, the 62 respondents from disadvantaged schools had a mean of 2.45, and the means differ significantly at the 5% level of significance.
This would suggest that on average the respondents from the advantaged school grouping ranked this factor significantly higher than the respondents from the disadvantaged school cohort.
Having more than one language medium of instruction
Table 5.24: Frequency distribution of the ranking of the factor more than one language medium of instruction.
4 3.0 3.0
4 3.0 6.0
24 17.9 23.9
49 36.6 60.4
53 39.6 100.0
134 100.0
one two three four five Total Valid
Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mean: 4.07 Overall Mean Rank: 5
Figure 5.17: Bar graph showing the ranking of the factor more than one language medium of instruction.
More than one language medium of instruction
five four
three two
one
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
40 37
18
3 3
The majority of the respondents ranked this factor either four (37%) or five (40%) making this factor one of the least important factors of the five. Only 8 respondents comprising 6% of the respondents ranked this factor either one or two. Overall, the mean rank of this factor was 5 compared to the other four factors/variables.
Table 5.25: T-test for equality of means between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in terms of the variable language medium of instruction.
72 4.17
62 3.95
classification of school advantaged
disadvantaged factor - more than one
language medium of instruction
N Mean
1.266 132 .208 .22
Equal variances assumed factor - more than one
language medium of instruction
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference t-test for Equality of Means
A computation of the independent samples t-test indicates that the 72 respondents from advantaged schools had mean of 4.17, the 62 respondents from disadvantaged schools had a mean of 3.95, and the means do not differ significantly at the 5% level of significance.
Learners with special educational needs (LSEN)
Table 5.26: Frequency distribution showing the ranking of the factor learners with special educational needs.
10 7.5 7.5
20 14.9 22.4
16 11.9 34.3
34 25.4 59.7
54 40.3 100.0
134 100.0
one two three four five Total Valid
Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mean: 3.76 Overall Mean Ranking: 4
Figure 5.18: Bar graph depicting the ranking of the factor learners with special educational needs.
Learners with special educ. needs
five four
three two
one
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
40
25
12 15
7
Overall, 88 of the respondents constituting 65% ranked this factor either four (25%) or five (40%). In terms of the overall mean ranking, this factor was ranked four compared to the other four factors/variables.
Question 7: To what extent, do you believe the following factors/variables should be