Uruguay

At this time a letter of introduction and information sheets (Appendix D) were distributed with a request to complete and return a questionnaire, the “Intentions Survey” (Appendix E).

The “Intentions Survey,” which was not part of the original proposal, was an example of how the research design evolved over the duration of the case study. It was introduced after discussions with my supervisors as a way of providing baseline data about the cohort of students under study. The Intentions Survey allowed for changes in students’ thinking over time to be identified, when compared with leavers’ later responses in follow-up interviews. It had the added advantage of raising awareness of the project, and students I followed up after they had left school generally remembered me speaking to them at assembly. Teachers helped collect the completed surveys which assisted in the excellent return from those present102

99

As well as the documents relating specifically to students, publicity materials, charters, newsletters policies and procedures, ERO Reports, self review material, meeting minutes and other written evidence of school functioning were analysed for operational differences between the schools. References to this material, and some details from the schools’ descriptions, have been removed to offer some level of confidentiality to the participating schools.

100

All senior students were spoken to about this project at special assemblies held near March 1, 2003, the date set by the Ministry of Education for data collection on which schools’ funding is based. For ethical reasons, in my own school the presentation to seniors and the administration of the Intentions Survey were conducted by senior deans.

101

In this case I advised students to note this at the bottom of the form, adding their name and year level only, so I could check against the roll who had been present that day. Absent students were briefed by the person appointed as my contact for each school and provided with the opportunity to complete the form on their return to school. That this was not entirely satisfactory was indicated by the fact that a few students completed two forms and some, who did not complete the Intentions Survey, later agreed to follow-up interviews when they left school.

.

102

I was never able to accurately establish the participation rate because the names on the rolls provided by the schools on several occasions did not match the list of survey participants or correlate with leavers’ lists. However, the actual number of students involved in these discrepancies was low. Questionnaires typically have a low response rate, less than 26 per cent according to Hamilton (2003, p. 1) but the relevance of the questions to the students and the opportunity to conduct the survey at the school site appeared to give advantages in this regard (Munn & Drever,

Erikson was the first researcher to recognise identity as being the major personality achievement of adolescence and that constructing identity involves “defining who you are, what you value, and the directions you choose to pursue in life” (Berk, 2001, p. 390). This conception formed the basis for the Intentions Survey, which made the assumption (which I later questioned) that the individual was a “rational agent—one who acts on the basis of reason, takes responsibility for those actions, and can explain them” (ibid.).

Students are more likely to leave school early if they have no motivation to stay on, so the survey had a number of questions related to their engagement with the institution and future goals. The survey sought to elicit information about students’ intentions for study in the forthcoming year and their plans for the future. Why students had returned to school for a further year, and their short term and longer term plans, gave an indication of their aspirations (Nash, 2002a, p. 26) which appeared to be linked with both their stage of identity development and achievement at school (McLeod, 2000, p. 505). In line with integration theories of drop out (Tinto, 1975, 1987, 2005), which suggested that students not well integrated into the academic and social life of the school might not be retained, questions were developed to find out about the subjects taken (vocationally oriented or not) and the extracurricular activities students engaged in. Whether there had ever been a time in the past when these returning students had considered leaving school was also of interest, based on the work of West, Hore, Bennie, Browne, and Kermond (1987, p. 85). It seemed worthwhile finding out what it was that encouraged these “waivering persisters” to carry on.

Many of the questions in the survey were open-ended, to encourage students to identify their own ideas rather than be constrained by predetermined options. An obvious disadvantage of this strategy was the need to develop a coding system to record and analyse the data. Codes were developed from the main themes which emerged in the students’ replies and cross checked with my research assistant to ensure appropriateness (Appendix F). The research assistant coded and inputted the data to

1999, p. 4). Strengths of this approach were that it collected information from a large number of people in a short time and it provided some degree of anonymity in the approach. Although names were put onto the forms, the students were assigned a code once the school rolls were finalised for the year and data was inputted by the research assistant under these codes.

ensure the confidentiality103 of students, each of whom was allocated a unique student identification number (student #)104