interviews conducted with staff in the state sector. The IBDP gives access to elite HEIs, because it prepares students well for the rigours that are expected of them, and enables concepts of globalism and internationalism (that are often dealt with negatively in the press), to be dealt with in a very positive educational context, and the Academy has a role to play in this, (Phelps, 2013).
This is where the theoretically-derived codes in 3.6.5 on ‘Beliefs’ are essential. As Table 4 (page 66) explained, the key educational and analytical themes that have been witnessed relate to these academic works that analyze the (lack of equity) across all systems. Although the IBDP has been considered in its Western context, the parallels are maintained into areas of the world where there is even greater inequality. The IBDP is ‘sold’ as a genuinely international qualification, but has not made in-roads into the poorer areas of the world, and exists only where there is an already established and developed education system, as was highlighted with reference to the work of Teare (2013), in section 1.7. This is an on-going area for development for the IBO that others have commented on Van Ord 2007: Walker 2002, and it will be interesting to watch the developments that occur in this area.
4.8 Research assessment /justification
The mixed methods used in this doctoral research process were varied and interesting, and in part changed over time as a response to the unfolding situation of the decline of the IBDP qualification in state centres in England whilst it was being studied. There is an overview of the methods used in the methodology, see Table 8: Research Methods – mapping, approaches, and data sources, on page 89. From questionnaires, focus groups and interviews providing the empirical research data through to the deployment of participant observation and ethnography; all methods have been useful for the perspectives that have been illuminated during this doctoral research process. However, some methods have been more appropriate and/or useful than others, and this section puts forward an assessment of the methods utilised.
Page 173 of 255
Strand 1 was appropriate as the research process was initially concerned with collecting the views of 16-19 students, to analyze why they had prompted for a non-standard choice of qualification. The idea of the questionnaires and follow up focus groups of both AS/A2 and IB1/IB2 groups was to see which particular stakeholders (parents, teachers, universities, and others) encouraged students to opt for the IB as opposed to A-Level. Questionnaires are absolutely appropriate to collect larger scale data (Silverman, 2014), and the response rate to the questionnaire was excellent because of how it was integrated into A-Level 3 session on research methodology inside A-Level and IB classes (for detailed explanation see page 95).
Strand 2’s focus groups to Middle Leaders (of which the author had been one) were appropriate to the chosen study because it required understanding the data set. Who was opting for the IBDP? Why were they making that decision? Where were the ‘push and pull’ factors in the system coming from? Their data was informative and useful to identifying who was choosing to study the IBDP and what issues it was potentially creating inside schools and colleges. This was particularly useful as the author had been involved in these conversations whilst a school middle leader, but with her transition into an HEI, was no longer privy to this information, and could not see what was happening from outside these centres. This is, in part, where the participant observation was appropriate as the author’s role was being back in these centres making notes on what was seen and heard, and accessed them on-line through their websites. This is a combination of the use of focus groups with ‘analytic memo writing’, as referred to earlier on page 110 (Saldana, 2013:49).
However, Strand 2’s focus groups also highlighted that these middle leaders were not the instrumental decision makers in their systems - it highlighted what they knew, but also what they did not know. It also, critically, did not highlight how senior leaders felt considering the significant impact that the IBDP was having to their centres and what options they had open to them to address any of the issues that were arising, such as resourcing. This is what Strand 4 belatedly addressed through the interviews.
Page 174 of 255
Strand 3 came about serendipitously, in that a small group of three of the author’s former A-Level students all studying at the same university, contacted me to share their thoughts, and the author was not sure if their information would be relevant or not. The focus group reduced from 11 to 8 on the second session that we met, but the author was surprised that all of this group turned up to subsequent sessions, including one after university, and the data set that it generated was thematically very interesting particularly regarding the social and cultural capitals displayed by the former IBDP students. Although it was interesting talking to this group of students on four occasions, it is hard to differentiate whether their advantages came from taking the IBDP or came from their independent schooling, as was discussed in The Findings in section 3.5. Suffice to say these former (state-sector) students were surprised by how much this group of peers were able to do, and how opportunities seem to have ‘fallen into their laps’ far more easily. But as is documented above, this is in part due to the fact that the former state school students need to work through holidays to pay their way through university, and therefore are unable to take opportunities (or place themselves in positions where such opportunities may be presented) such as unpaid internships, just as the Milburn Report (2009) maintained. These four HEI focus groups, then, although only a very small part of the overall data set, were useful in that (at A-Level) the level of specificity they offered of some concrete examples on social differentiation related to elite group behaviour and opportunities.
Strand 4, is believed to be the most significant strand, the most contemporary and also the most time consuming! But what the Mayring process allows is for the codes to be inductively developed and the paraphrasing allows for simplification of hours of relatively complicated material. This is why in the analysis and discussion, the frames of reference are employed: in order to simplify, condense, and paraphrase the context in which all of this decision- making regarding post-16 qualifications and the ensuing differentiated access that it gives to HEIs.
Page 175 of 255
The interesting research method of participant observation (Bruyn, 1966) should also be returned to. It was noticeable, in conducting the interviews that as well as being a colleague, who had been recommended into these institutions by peers, the author was also a programme leader in a Russell Group university by the time they were held, and so these school leaders were interested themselves in areas of access and progression that came up in the interviews, in the same way that the author was interested in the visits to the centres, and how the notes made at the time impacted on the details in Appendix 12 on the centre narratives.
Overall, the four differing strands of research are considered to have been useful and worked to yield relevant and appropriate data. It is these data sets which have of course helped to shape the analysis and discussion contained in this chapter. It is worth adding that with hindsight this has been a more complicated process than was originally anticipated, and it could have been far simpler. However, if the author had not collected some of the strands of data, this research process would not have the depth of understanding of the differing positions that have been identified here.
Three other areas are of significance in our understanding of the issues and themes that this thesis has identified. The first area is the complicated one of socio-economic status. In an ideal world the students answering the questionnaires would have known their parental occupations, and the questionnaire data could have been stratified accordingly to see if there was any direct correlation between IBDP take-up and elite groups. However, although such social differentiation has been witnessed in other areas in this research process (such as inside the student focus groups and in comments made by different levels of staff both in focus groups and interviews) it was not possible to find any clear correlation from the questionnaire results as students either did not know or were unwilling to provide detailed and accurate information on parental occupation or their socio-economic status. It is well known that research on class and socio-economic status is problematic (Crompton, 2008).
Page 176 of 255
The second area is that of parents themselves. It is considered that had it been possible to conduct a parental focus group to explore in depth with them the issues surrounding social differentiation that would have generated a useful strand of data and further contextual insights. The external scoping of the research could then have more thoroughly considered: whether or not parents are being pushed into using the independent sector - as the IBDP is now virtually unavailable across the state sector outside a few notable areas, as has been discussed. It is believed that this idea for an additional strand of research would have been useful; but it was discounted because it was just too problematic to organise. However, if a director of IB or head teacher were conducting such a strand of research their access would potentially be easier than has been for this doctoral research process, now that the author is one step removed from the relevant school and college contexts. Although of course power issues would need to be addressed inside such an insider research process.
The third distinct area that is considered useful for the external links to this doctoral research process, but was again discounted: was to involve a global dimension. With the IBDP being a very international qualification but taught in a more international school context, a global dimension would also have been interesting, and highlighted some of the differences of how the IBDP is operated around the world. In a larger study, this could potentially show how the qualification is used as a form of stratification through curriculum choice, and this could look at other forms of qualification that elite institutions deliver such as the American Baccalaureate too. Of course, these additional areas of recommendations for further research, or ‘disclaimers’, do not detract from what is intended to be a rigorous description and analysis of educational and curriculum reform which has taken into account the need for verifiable evidence, and generalisability, where appropriate.
Page 177 of 255
In summary, this chapter has analyzed and discussed The Findings from Chapter 3, in relation to the Literature Review from Chapter 1: exploring the key educational and analytical themes that were espoused in Table 4 on page 66. The key questions have been: whether or not entrenchment occurs because of the IBDP? Do groups with high levels of capital successfully maintain the IBDP for themselves? This fourth chapter has addressed, through the research assessment and justification that some of these areas have been hard to collect data on specifically, because of the difficulties of collecting Socio Economic Status (SES) statistics, but the findings from all Strands this thesis maintains that the decline of the IBDP in the state sector has led to a situation where access has become further differentiated: to elite group advantage. The results from the small HEI focus group of Strand 3 demonstrated some of these continued advantages. It is only the ‘elite’ in society that are now able to access the IBDP: either through independent school fees or by accessing one of the few remaining, declining, places that this research process has visited in England where the IBDP remains on offer in the state sector. Inside Strand 4, some SLT members (particularly from Centre 7) spoke of parents (and students) who had re-located into their catchment area, in order to access the IBDP, in the state sector.
The four strands of data conducted in this research process all identified ever- changing priorities from government as central issues, and lack of support for ideas that have been put on the agenda for schools/colleges to follow through on being pivotal to their eventual success or failure. Critical to an understanding of the challenges of educational leadership, then becomes not just the personal, individualistic circumstances, but the wider social, political and economic context in which these leaders are operating, as has been highlighted.
Page 178 of 255