i Selecting the sample

Pawson and Tilley (1997) argue that realistic evaluators, who arrive with a theory of CMO configurations, however embryonic, are in a position to test the theory through identifying the subjects and practitioners who can provide local knowledge and information, and then talking to them.

To collect the data, the individuals who implement or are affected by the strategies and actions described in the behaviour policy, who operate within different contexts, and who may be aware of a variety of outcomes, were identified. This involved a purposive sampling strategy (Cohen et al., 2000), which sought to ensure that the sample included those who might indicate most distinctly the utility or otherwise of the behaviour policy and provide information relevant to the research questions. The programme specification suggests this would be a sample of students, teaching staff and parents or carers.

With respect to gathering data about hypothesised CMO configurations Pawson and Tilley (1997) draw a useful distinction between subjects, practitioners and evaluators. In the current study the students are the subjects of the behaviour policy. They are likely to know a lot about mechanisms, as they are daily observers and/or on the receiving end of the strategies designed to promote good behaviour, and they will “know” whether these espoused strategies are indeed enacted, and the effect these

strategies, as enacted, have on them personally. They will also have a view, as observers, of the behaviour policy in action. Contextual differences, such as the age of the students, their general engagement with learning, or differences between

133

teacher styles, can potentially be elicited by gaining information from students. However, students have only a „fixed position‟ within the programme; they have a personal view from their position in the school system, alongside a more limited view of the experience of other stakeholders. Therefore, the sampling strategy sought subjects who had varying experiences of the behaviour policy, ranging from those students experiencing SEBD who had received considerable individualised support, to those who were not described as experiencing SEBD (but with an emphasis on the former group). As in the preliminary study, students with a range of ages from 11 to 15 were also selected to accommodate any age or maturational effects.

The practitioners in the current study comprise school staff (including teachers, teaching assistants, learning mentors, SLT and the Parent Liaison Adviser). These stakeholders translate the behaviour policy into practice. They interpret and adapt the policy in the light of their own theories (C) about managing behaviour; they will have had successes and failures (Os), and have ideas about when and for whom the actions and strategies described in the behaviour policy (Ms) work. Practitioners were sampled from different levels in the school organisational hierarchy (from members of the SLT to teaching assistants), subject areas, year groups and length of experience in the school to provide a wider range of data to test the programme specification.

Parents, although strictly neither practitioners nor subjects of the behaviour policy clearly have an important role in supporting, both their children and the school regarding the effective implementation of the policy.

The views of 8 students 7 parents and 10 members of school staff were gained. In order to gain a variety of perspectives of the behaviour policy students were selected

134

from three different groups as either experiencing significant SEBD, low level SEBD or no SEBD. As in the preliminary study, the student sample was selected by examining the school SEN register and in discussion with the Inclusion Manager at Willow Park, in order to produce a sample that would potentially have a variety of perspectives on the research question:

“with qualitative research, people, texts or events are not necessarily selected as being representative or normal instances. It is more likely than is the case with quantitative approaches that the selection will try to include special instances – ones that are extreme, unusual, best or worse. This allows the qualitative researcher to get „maximum variation‟ in the data that are collected, a broad spectrum rather than a narrowly focused source of information. This, of course, accords with the spirit of qualitative research and its quest for explanations which encompass complexity, subtlety and even contradictions”

(Denscombe, 2003 p 26). The student sample is described below.

1. Four students for whom modifications were being made to address SEBD. This group included three pupils who were receiving additional support within mainstream classrooms and who had a Statement of Special Educational Needs, and a pupil being educated away from the school at a Community Centre. These pupils were selected from those whom teaching staff had the greatest difficulty managing, some of whom had already received fixed-term exclusions from the school. These students were selected to provide data about the behaviour policy which, within the school context, had not provided successful outcomes for them.

2. Two students were selected from a sub-set who were considered by school staff to need some additional support at some times, who may have received a small number of fixed term exclusions but whose difficulties were not as great as those in

135

the first group. These students identified as experiencing low level SEBD had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) at the School Action level of the SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2002) in place for at least two years. It was considered likely these students would be able to provide data about mechanisms and contexts that were providing variable outcomes for them and to provide information about what was, or could be successful and under what circumstances.

3. Two students who were considered by school staff to have progressed well at school needing little, if any, additional support comprised the rest of the sample. This sub-group was included to provide information about mechanisms and contexts that were generally successful, as well as areas for development or inconsistencies in the application of the behaviour policy from the perspective of students judged to be succeeding in school.

Table 4.3 Student sample by year group, sex and level of SEBD

Year No SEBD Experiencing low

level SEBD Experiencing significant SEBD „n‟ 7 1 (male) 1 8 1 (female) 1 9 1(male) 1(male) 2 10 1(female) 1(male) 2 11 1(male) 1 (female) 2 „n‟ 2 2 4 8

The parents of each of these students also gave their permission to be interviewed. The parental sample was also considered likely to have varying experiences of the school behaviour policy resulting from the different experiences of their children. All parents of the student sample were interviewed, except for the parent of one student

136

experiencing significant SEBD as a result of a long series of difficulties arranging a mutually convenient time to complete the interview.

The permission letter for parents is included in Appendix X, an information sheet for students is included in Appendix XI, and the permission sheet for students is included in Appendix XII

The ten members of staff interviewed included three members of the SLT, three teachers, three teaching assistants and the parent liaison advisor (PLA). Interviews were arranged by the Inclusion Manager at times convenient to the members of staff.

Of the three members of the SLT interviewed, one had been working at Willow Park for 12 years and had significant experience of teaching students experiencing SEBD. Prior to the revision of the behaviour policy he had held pastoral responsibility for students in Year 10 and Year 11 and had been instrumental in the setting up of a short-term off-school centre for students experiencing significant SEBD. The second member of the SLT interviewed had been working at Willow Park for nine years, with four years experience as the school Inclusion Manager. As a result she had significant experience coordinating support for students experiencing SEBD, for instance through communicating the nature of students‟ SEN to class teachers,

through coordinating additional teaching assistant support and through meeting with students and their parents in school. The third member of the SLT interviewed had been at Willow Park for less than a year, but had been appointed as a Deputy Head with pastoral responsibility across the school on the basis of the relevant experience of SEBD he brought from his previous school.

137

Of the three teaching assistants interviewed, two worked with students experiencing SEBD as the major part of their role and both had worked at Willow Park for over five years. The third teaching assistant had been at the school for one year and although she had not worked directly with students experiencing SEBD, she had worked in classes that included children experiencing such difficulties.

Two teachers in the sample had worked at the school for less than two years, one of whom had been teaching for over 20 years and the other was newly qualified when he started at Willow Park. The third teacher had 11 years experience working at Willow Park. All the teachers interviewed had at least some experience teaching children experiencing SEBD.

The parent liaison adviser had been at the school for 10 months and the main part of her role was supporting and liaising with students experiencing SEBD, their families and their teachers.