1.2. MARCO LEGAL
3.1.1. Proceso en el desarrollo de la encuesta
Initially, I planned to collect data from a sample drawn from individuals who were in senior positions in schools which had declined to a serious extent. This section outlines the selection of the initial sample of schools and of the individual participants who were involved during the decline period. As the research progressed, I expanded this sample to ensure saturation of the interview data. Later, a sample of educational advisors was selected to respond to a set of research propositions, developed during the data analysis. The process of selecting educational advisors is outlined in Chapter 4 as part of the way the grounded theory methodology moved towards a conclusion.
School selection and access
The first decision in designing the research process was whether to select primary schools, secondary schools or both. I selected secondary schools, rather than primary, because they are larger and more complex organisations. It has been said that secondary schools are resistant, if not impervious, to change (Fink, 1997; Hargreaves, 1994; Sarason, 1971). This may be an overstatement but, in a larger organisation, decline is probably less likely to result from random events, local anomalies or the actions of one individual. Secondary school decline is, therefore, likely to be a more reliable reflection of generic decline issues. My second decision was whether to select single sex or co-educational schools. I selected co-educational schools. While they are only one part of the compulsory schooling sector in New Zealand, they represent 80 percent of all state secondary schools29 and are the largest sector. I decided to include only state schools because they form the bulk of New Zealand’s education system. Integrated and independent schools are in the minority and are governed and funded differently. Three state co-educational secondary schools were approached to participate and they all agreed.
29 This percentage was calculated from data that were downloaded from the Government “Education
Counts” website on 20th February, 2007.
Deciding on criteria for “decline” and “failure”, and selecting schools on that basis, was a more complex issue than deciding on the types of schools to include in the sample. The schools were selected according to the following criteria: each qualified for the research as a school that had been through a serious enough decline to have been identified in the recent past as “failing” by the MOE, ERO and the media. This was evidenced by negative ERO reports, newspaper and magazine articles exposing school problems, inclusion in the Schools Support Programme30 and/or replacement of the Board of Trustees (BOT)31 with a commissioner32. At the commencement of my study, I was aware of at least nine secondary schools, in the North Island33 alone, that met the above criteria. Three were selected for pragmatic and methodological reasons. The first pragmatic reason was that it is more likely that I would be given access to schools in which I had worked and established rapport and trust. The second pragmatic reason was that the selected schools are now in a process of positive development, having become successful enough not to feel threatened by involvement in a research programme. All three schools now have principals who were not involved during the period of decline. The majority of the current senior leaders are also new to their schools. Each school has had at least one positive ERO report and all three have stable or increasing rolls. Methodological reasons for selecting three schools included the research design allowing for as few as three, being able to select schools with differing decile ratings, having enough schools to triangulate data in a range of ways and having confidence that I would have enough interviews to achieve saturation of the data. I have worked in each of the schools in a range of roles and have personal knowledge about each school and its history. Serving in multiple roles, especially in New Zealand and in my work, is common in education and has the potential to cause confusion or to compromise informed consent (Oliver, 2003). At the same time, it can have the advantage of providing a researcher with access because of already established credibility. My credibility with current and past personnel, and rapport and trust with current personnel, is based on their knowledge and assessment of my work. On several occasions I was told that the trust in me was the major reason each of the boards permitted my research, and the reason that some of the participants agreed to an interview. Privacy and confidentiality for
30 This programme is one of the intervention programmes set up by the MOE to ensure schools at risk, or in
decline, are monitored and supported.
31 The school’s governing body. It is a body corporate and is elected by the school’s community.
32 The Minister of Education can replace an elected board of trustees with a commissioner if s/he thinks the
school is seriously at risk and the BOT is not governing effectively.
33 Most of New Zealand’s population is in two large islands and the majority of that population is in the
participants and for the schools was not difficult to protect during the data collection period because I was still having contact with each of the schools for a variety of reasons as a normal part of my work in schools. My occasional contact with the schools and school personnel would not seem unusual, even to my colleagues. It would have been difficult for school personnel to find out about the research interviews because 32 of the 36 interviews took place off site.
Interviewee selection
The grounded theory process of theoretical sampling, while involving an initial plan, requires the researcher to move in new directions, indicated by the data, when selecting participants. In designing the plan I was cognisant of Fink, using a similar methodology, saying there are few guidelines for researchers working in retrospective research situations (1997, p. 4). Initially, I sought people who were in the school before the decline began and who continued their employment during the decline. My intention was to select interviewees who were involved in the study schools over as long a period as possible, who held positions of influence, had wide-ranging knowledge of what was happening in the school and/or contact with a wide range of school personnel. As the interviewing progressed, interviewees were chosen because of key roles they played in the school during the decline period. The sample, therefore, includes senior and middle management (deputy, associate and assistant principals and heads of departments), trustees, and other key personnel such as counsellors, principals’ personal assistants (PAs), and caretakers. It was a purposive sample selected by using a snowballing strategy. Individual participants were identified through my knowledge, reference to documents (such as staff lists or minutes) and mention by other interviewees. Current principals were asked to identify long serving staff and trustees. Also, at the end of each interview, I asked the interviewee if they knew of others who might be contacted for an interview. The snowball sample grew as one contact led to another. There were five recommended contacts I was unable to locate because they had left the country, died or moved away.
My previous qualitative research experience indicated that it would probably take about eight to ten interviews before the data were likely to be saturated. My initial proposal estimated a sample of ten participants from each school; 30 in total. Using grounded theory, however, resulted in this plan being modified. More interviews were arranged if data were not saturated or when categories emerged during analysis, indicating a need to
investigate a particular group of behaviours. An example of the latter reason for selecting interviewees was the school leaders who were so disillusioned they left their school at a relatively early stage in its decline (see Chapter 4). The interviews were not conducted in strict order with one school being completed before another was started. I began with just one school (School A), completing six interviews before I started interviewing people from the second school (School B). Interviews overlapped across schools A and B, and then across schools B and C. Most of the last interviews to be completed were from School C. I extended the number of interviewees for school B because earlier interviews had signaled the importance of interviewing staff who had made the decision to leave the school. The reason there were only nine interviewees from School C was because the data were saturated by that time. In all, 36 interviews were conducted with participants: 12 from School A, 15 from School B and 9 from School C.