the study through announcements at faculty meetings (at two schools) and flyers distributed through the school. Interested teachers completed an opt-in survey that collected information about teaching experience, subjects taught, course loads, etc. The research team reviewed the data from the opt-in survey and then identified a participant pool that reflected maximum variation along the selection criteria. This list of possible participants was then brought to the principal for approval. It is important to note that in no cases did the principal make changes to the participant pool suggested by the research team. After the list of participants was finalized, the
research team reached out to the participants to share more details about the study, review the consent process, and schedule the school data collection visit. Teachers’ decisions to participate in the study were voluntary. Table 2 reports the demographics of the selected teachers at the three case schools. Similar to the school profiles, demographics and details are, in some cases, presented in general terms with the intent of protecting the identities of the participants.
As illustrated in Table 2, we achieved good variation in participants’ years of teaching experience, variation in prior work experience, subjects taught (both electives and core subjects with mandated end-of-course tests), and
advanced, regular and inclusion classes. We also achieved variation in teaching load and other responsibilities, such as extracurricular and leadership roles. Variation in race and gender diversity was reflective of the regional teacher population, but not necessarily of the teacher demographics at each school. Finally, we achieved variation in contract status that is somewhat reflective of the teaching population but not necessarily reflective of the percentage of probationary status teachers at each of the case schools.
Other participant selection
In addition to teachers, we conducted interviews with the principals at all three schools, an
assistant principal at one of the schools, and a split teacher/administrator. Collecting data from these participants allowed us to develop a richer understanding of the school culture and context.
Data Collection
One of the core strategies of the case study method is the collection of multiple sources of evidence.7 Multiple sources not only allow for 7 Yin, 2014
understanding the complexity of the context surrounding the phenomena of interest, but also for the triangulation of findings, an approach that has the potential to strengthen the quality of the inferences made from the data. Data collection for this study occurred in two distinct phases.
Phase 1: Developing a preliminary
school profile
The first phase of data collection began directly after the final selection of the three case schools. The goal was to develop a preliminary profile of each school based on a review of existing documents and secondary data. The data
collected included school-level data from the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data, the Virginia Department of Education, publicly- available community data, division and state level policy documents, and district and school websites. Each school profile told the story of the school with a particular interest in how the policy environment and community context shaped the professional culture of the school over time. These profiles were shared with the principal at each school for review and editing prior to the beginning of the site visits. These profiles were also shared with the Study Team and used for the training of the research team prior to data collection at the school sites.
Phase 2: Case-by-case site visits
The second phase of data collection involved site visits at each of the case study schools. Each visit occurred on four consecutive days over the course of a week. The site visits at each school were spaced at intervals through the fall and winter of the 2015-2016 school year. Each site visit was conducted by a research team that included the principal investigator (Senechal), two MERC graduate research assistants (Sober and Johnson), and two Study Team members
that rotated through the course of the study (Burkhalter, Castelow, Gilfillan, Jackson, Nabors, Neuman, Robinson, Sargeant, and Stanford). The site visit involved the collection of data through participant shadowingand individual semi-structured interviews.8 Both the shadowing and the interviews were designed to answer a set of guiding questions informed by the morale framework and propositions. Below are descriptions of the various components of the site visit.
t Morning research team meetings. Each morning of the site visit the research team convened in a school conference room to discuss the schedule for the day and review the morale framework in preparation for taking observation field notes.
t Observation/shadowing. Each day of the site visit, each research team member was paired with a school participant. After the morning meeting, the team member shadowed the school participant through the day. These shadowing observations varied between participants, but overall covered a range of activities including teaching, planning duties, lunch, school meetings (e.g., department, faculty) and professional development experiences. During the shadowing, the research team member took open field notes on the experiences, with the teacher morale framework in mind.
t Afternoon research team meeting. After finishing the shadowing observation time the research team reconvened. During this time, each team member reviewed his/her field notes and wrote up a summary based on a set of guiding observation questions aligned with the framework (Appendix A). These extended field notes were one of the primary data sources for the study.
t Semi-structured interviews. Following the afternoon team meeting, each research team member conducted a semi-structured interview with the paired school participant. Appendix B is the list of interview questions used. In certain cases interview questions were altered slightly for participants in non- teaching roles. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Administrator data collection followed a slightly different procedure. The principal investigator met with each of the school principals prior to the recruitment process in order to establish and build a relationship and a communication protocol for the research process. The principals were not shadowed, with the exception of the one assistant principal participant. Formal semi- structured interviews were conducted with each principal following the site visit using an adapted set of questions. See Appendix C.