LOS DONES ESPIRITUALES LA ENCUESTA DE LOS DONES ESPIRITUALES:

Case study, identified as a qualitative approach to research (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011), is distinguished from a case report through the inclusion of the methodological detail (Hyett et al., 2014), as provided within section 3.5 of this chapter. Within qualitative research there are two main educational case study approaches, separated by the paradigms in which they are established. The first is situated within a constructivist paradigm (Stake, 1995 and Merriam, 2009), and the second is approached from a postpositivist position (Yin, 2012). In line with the ontological and epistemological position of constructivism, as outlined in section 3.2, the methodological framework of case study that is situated in a constructivist paradigm was selected for my research. This enabled not only the methodology to remain connected to the ‘core values and intentions’ of the research (Hyett et al., 2014 p.2), but also recognises the interaction between my role as researcher and the case, as well as my role as facilitator in connecting the reader to the research (Stake, 1995).

Citing one of the first educational ethnographers Louis Smith, Stake (1995), in agreement with Merriam (1998), defines a case as a ‘bounded system’ (Stake, 1995 p.2). Stake draws attention to the case as an object, whereas postpositivist case study researchers regard it as a process. Merriam (1998) concluded that if the case ‘is not intrinsically bounded, it is not a case’ (p.27), providing the general rule of identifying a case based upon its potential for finite data collection. For example, if there is not a finite number of people to interview or observe, it is seen not to be a case.

Case study appropriately supports the purposes of qualitative research design, as identified within the previous section. A case study is considered by Stake (1995) to provide research knowledge which is distinct from other methodologies. It supports the researcher to collect the multiple perspectives of the participants, whilst engaging them in the research process (Simons, 2011). Stake (1995) acknowledges case study as being able to provide more

42

concrete and vivid knowledge, rooted within the holistic and naturalistic context of the case. In turn this supports a reader to ‘understand its activity within important circumstances’ (p.xi), whilst recognising the case as ‘a specific, a complex, functioning thing’ (Stake, 1995, p.2). The provision by the researcher of the complete narrative, what Stake (1995) and Merriam (1998) refer to as the thick description of the case and phenomenon being researched, supports the heuristic nature of case study, in that as with qualitative research design it is recognised as supporting the readers’ understanding.

Case study design is utilised in order to gain an in depth understanding of either single or multiple cases, the processes and their context, as well as the discovery of the meanings for those involved within them. My research question supports a holistic account of how Shakespeare School managed both inclusion and progression, a single school and a straightforward example of a bounded system (Merriam, 1998), selected for a ‘detailed examination of a solitary exemplar’ (Ruddin, 2006, p.797).

3.4.1 Single case study

Purposeful selection, as opposed to random selection, of Shakespeare School as a single case was focused upon maximising what could be learnt. Selection of the school studied was therefore not regarded as sampling research, with Stake (1995) clarifying that:

‘… we do not study a case primarily to understand other cases. Our first obligation is to understand this one case.’ (p.4)

Choosing a single, non-random school based upon its uniqueness supports the focus of the research in understanding its particularisation, and what makes it unique (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Whilst quantitative researchers in seeking for generalization would recognise such uniqueness as an error, a carefully chosen case with a clear rationale for its selection is seen as critical in order to add to knowledge and lead to discovery (Flyvberg, 2001). Whilst, as indicated in Chapter One, I had identified Shakespeare School prior to the research for the reasons why it presented as an interesting case, I did not accept it as the school to research until I had investigated if there were more suitable alternatives that would lead to its rejection. I compiled a data base of fifty five primary schools within the local authority area. I searched and included the latest Ofsted school inspection grade, children’s outcomes at Key Stage Two, the progress data reported and the percentage of children with EAL, SEN and those entitled to FSM. Shakespeare School was not the only school to have an outstanding grade at inspection, but compared to the other three schools in that category it had the highest progress data and percentage of children with EAL, SEN and those entitled to receive FSM. Removing the Ofsted category from the database it remained unique in that

43

no other school reported the progression data that it did. Two other schools had similar EAL, SEN and FSM figures but reported lower progression data. As a result, Shakespeare School was selected as the case study, not selected for its typicality, but as a unique example when factors relating to children’s educational progression, diversity and inclusion were considered. This supported the instrumental purpose of the case study in that it would provide understanding, not just of the school itself, but also the phenomenon under research: utilising the very reasons for its selection (Shaw, 1978; Stake, 1995).

The intention of the research was interpretative/analytical (Merriam, 1998). The focus was not one of description, usually selected for the purpose of providing a form of data base, nor was it evaluative in the sense of providing an assessment or judgement of this school. The interpretative /analytical focus supports the paradigm in which this research was positioned enabled the gathering and analysis of participant’s interpretations in light of the theoretical framework of Chapter Two.

As mentioned in Chapter One, as a practitioner I recognised that Shakespeare School felt different, I also knew that once inside it looked different to most schools I visited. Through the research I was able to get beneath this to discover how they effectively supported children’s progression and inclusion, going beyond the contextual information of the school.

3.4.2 The case – Shakespeare School

An overview of the school context was provided in Chapter One, section 1.3, with further information confirming its uniqueness for research selection provided within this section. The school is located within a city in the East Midlands of England, and referred to throughout the thesis using the pseudonym Shakespeare School to protect its anonymity. The area in which the school is positioned is identified by the local authority as having levels of high deprivation and high levels of social housing. The city has attracted significant migration to the city of families recently arrived in Britain, many of whom are living within the area of the school. As a result of transitions following arrival to the city, including changes to accommodation, the school and LA reported that there remains an increased number of children joining and leaving the school at different times during the year, churn above that normally found. Data provided by the school, released by the LA and confirmed through the Ofsted dashboard demonstrated that the ninety eight percent attendance recorded for the children remains two percent higher than the national average. The proportion of children with SEN attending the school is sixteen percent higher than the national average, with eleven percent more children entitled to FSM attending the school than the national average. School data showed that eight out of every ten children have EAL coming from minority ethnic heritages, sixty percent higher than the

44

national average, with over thirty different languages spoken within the school. Over the last five years, children at Shakespeare School attained higher educational outcomes in each Key Stage Two tests, including: reading, writing, mathematics, and the grammar, punctuation and spelling tests, when compared to children across all the other schools within the same city. Figure 3.2 provides the test result data for 2016, again demonstrating their significantly higher results when compared to national, as well as the local authority, figures. The national measurement of progress, a government indicator of school effectiveness that compares the results of children nationally with similar prior attainment, put Shakespeare School in the top five percent of schools within the country for adding value to their children’s learning.

National Local

Authority Shakespeare School

Reading 66% 52% 70%

GPS 72% 62% 85%

Maths 70% 59% 82%

Writing 74% 73% 79%

RWM 53% 39% 70%

Figure 3.2 2016 Key Stage Two results- percentage of children achieving national expectations at Shakespeare School The school was graded as an outstanding school by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) in 2012, with the school’s multicultural community reported as being fully inclusive and cohesive. Shakespeare School remains a National School of Creativity, holding the Healthy School status, Artsmark Silver and Race Equality awards. Following the Ofsted inspection in 2012 the school converted to an academy, and has since made an application to join with a secondary school to develop a Multi Academy Trust (MAT) and build an additional Primary School within the city.

3.4.3 Participants

Shakespeare Primary School is larger than most primary schools with one executive principal, one principal and a further eight members of the senior management team, thirty teachers and forty six teaching assistants. The participants in the study were all staff working across a range of roles within Shakespeare school, including four members of the Senior Management Team (SM), six teaching staff (T), three Teaching Assistants (TA) and four Higher Level Teaching Assistants (HLTA). The nature of the participant sample is clarified by Figure 3.3, with anonymity supported as far as possible through the removal of the associated number in relation to role.

45 Role(s) Key Stage Year Group Research Phase 1 (Fig. 3.4) Stage of research in Phase 1 (Fig. 3.4) Research Phase 2 (Fig. 3.4) Stage of research in Phase 2 (Fig. 3.4) SM 2 6 Yes 1,2,3,5 - -

SM & Governor - - Yes 2,3 - -

SM & Governor 1 2 Yes 1,2,3,5 Yes 1

SM & Governor - - - - Yes 1

T EY R Yes 1,2,3,5

T 1 1 - - Yes 1

T 1 2 Yes 1,2,3,5

T 2 3 - - Yes 1

T & Governor 2 4 Yes 1,2,3,5 - -

T 2 5 Yes 1,2,3,5 - -

HLTA EY R - - Yes 1

HLTA 1 1/2 - - Yes 1

HLTA & Parent 2 3/4 - - Yes 1

HLTA 2 5/6 - - Yes 1

TA EY R - - Yes 1

TA & Parent 1 1 Yes 1,2,3,5 - -

TA 2 4 - - Yes 1

Figure 3.3 The nature of staff participants as a sample

Purposeful sampling, as a non-randomised method of sampling, was utilised. This was identified as appropriate for selecting participants across a range of roles and year groups in order that they provided data from which most could be learnt (Merriam, 1998). Patton (2002) acknowledged purposeful selection as particularly useful in gathering information during in- depth case study in that it reveals shared values, experiences and the dimensions of the setting, as well as individual and unique interpretations. Whilst two participants were also parents of children in the school, they identified themselves within the research as staff. Parents were not included as participants within the primary data collection phases, with data collected instead in relation to this parental group through the review of documentation identified within section 3.5.1.3 of this chapter. Whilst not having parent participants was noted within section 6.2 of the thesis as a limitation of the research, without the financial resources to pay for the required language translation services I could not ensure parent participants would be able to provide properly informed consent with a fully informed understanding of their right to withdrawal from the research. Therefore, the decision not to include parents as participants was an ethical one and the results of the research are made on the basis of the school’s staff as participants.

46

Menter et al. (2011) advocated research engagement amongst staff within an organisation in order to support institutional improvement. However, in order to avoid my previous contact with the school as a teacher trainer affecting participant engagement the following points were emphasised by the senior management team and myself at the introductory staff meeting. The focus on the research exploring what makes the school successful for all children was emphasised, confidentiality for the participants and their role in documenting the case was highlighted, and my role as a researcher as opposed to an assessor of participants was explicitly shared. Ben-Ari and Enosh (2013) in examining research relationships acknowledged the potential to empower both participants and the researcher through the reciprocity of the research. Rather than taking participation for granted, I recognised that the success of the research required everyone who chose to, to see at some level the value of engaging with it. This was recognised by the interest in collaborating in the research by staff participants, the enthusiasm of the focus group, as discussed in section 3.5.2.1 of this chapter, and the school initiated children’s image based project, as discussed in section 3.5.1.3 of this chapter that enhanced the research results.