The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3.0 SURVEY

3.1 Aims

The aims of the Survey were:

i) to provide a broad picture of current drug education delivery arrangements in Scottish schools, building on previous surveys of drug education provision

ii) to identify key differences in delivery arrangements and to quantify the extent of these differences

3.2 Methods

Three potential survey administration methods were considered: face-to-face, telephone or postal. Face-to-face administration was likely to have been prohibitively expensive given the large sample size and the need for geographic spread, and was ruled out on these grounds. A telephone survey would have had the advantage of being potentially the least burdensome for respondents. However, the telephone survey approach raised logistical problems in the school context as would probably have been difficult to locate the desired respondent at a suitable time and for a sufficient length of time to conduct the interview. Furthermore the telephone interview approach is limited in the quantity and types of information that can be collected, making it difficult to present questions with lengthy response options and which require the respondent to consult with colleagues or records.

We therefore adopted a postal administration procedure. In our experience, postal survey administration can be both effective and cost-effective in generating a satisfactory response rate and standard of completion. Previous postal surveys ³⁴⁵ that we have conducted with professionals have achieved response rates ranging from 62% to 83% depending on the complexity of the research topic and diversity of the sample.

Questionnaire Development and Piloting

A draft questionnaire was developed in consultation with members of the research team and the Scottish Executive Education Department. In order to minimise the burden on schools and to maximise response rates it was important to keep the questionnaire brief and highly structured, eliminating or minimising the use of open-ended questions.

The questionnaire was adapted to provide three separate tailored versions suited to Primary, Secondary and Special schools. The questionnaires were piloted with a Primary school and a Secondary school to examine appropriateness of terminology, navigation, flow, length, relevance and ability to complete. Representatives from each school completed a questionnaire and subsequently participated in a telephone interview to discuss response to and comprehension of individual questions within the questionnaires. A representative from a Special school provided guidance on the suitability of the questions within the version prepared for Special schools.

Piloting indicated that, overall, the questionnaire was short and straightforward to complete. The exercise was helpful in identifying appropriate terminology and answer categories. As some Special schools provide both primary and secondary level education, sections were included to enable separate responses to be given about drug education at each level. The questionnaires were agreed with the client in Spring 2004.

Fieldwork Procedures

The survey was conducted during May and June 2004. The initial mail-out included a cover letter, explaining the purpose of the study, and a copy of the questionnaire together with a reply-paid envelope. A reply-slip was also enclosed to enable the head teacher to inform us whether and to whom they had forwarded the questionnaire for completion. Four different versions of the cover letter were prepared to provide clear explanation about whether the survey was to be completed on behalf of Primary only, Secondary only, a Special school or both Primary and Secondary.

A reminder letter was mailed to non-responding schools after approximately two weeks and, where necessary, a second reminder, along with a further copy of the questionnaire, was mailed approximately two weeks later. Strategies employed to ensure a satisfactory response rate included:

• Personalised cover letter to head teacher
• Questionnaire designed for ease of completion
• Clear instructions about who should complete the questionnaire
• Inclusion of a reply-slip to enable the head teacher to inform us easily if, and to whom, they passed the questionnaire to for completion
• A specified date for returning the questionnaire
• Inclusion of a freepost envelope
• A contact name and number for any enquiries
• A two-stage reminder process with a further questionnaire sent at the second reminder

3.3 Sample

A census of all secondary schools, including independents, was taken to enable the study to examine variation in drug education provision by variables such as school status, geographic area and socio-economic measures. The burden on primary and special schools was reduced by limiting the survey to a sample of each. A random sample of primary schools was drawn to be representative of all primary schools in Scotland. The sample was stratified by education authority and school status (statutory/independent) to ensure coverage of all education authorities and inclusion of independent schools. Special schools were also randomly sampled with stratification by education authority and school status to provide a sample representative of special schools in Scotland. The sample is presented in Table A3.1.

Table A3.1. School Sample

Response Rates

A total of 928 completed questionnaires were returned from an initial mail-out of 1290 questionnaires (see Table A3.2). This is equivalent to a response rate of 72% of all schools mailed to. Of the 77 Special schools sampled, 12 schools replied indicating that they considered the questionnaire to be non-applicable to their school due to the nature of special needs in their school or due to their pupils participating in PSE in a mainstream school. Therefore, adjusting for ineligible schools, the response rate overall is 73% and the response rate from Special schools is 66%.

Table A3.2. Survey Response Rates

3.4 Data Processing and Analysis

Questionnaires were coded and edited prior to data input. All open ended responses were coded thematically to provide a full interpretation of responses. Data were input to an electronic file by a data processing agency. Data were input twice to check for and remove any errors. Data have been processed and reported separately for the three different types of schools: primary, secondary and special schools. Data for the primary and secondary schools have been analysed by school status (local authority versus other), school size (small, medium or large) and free meal entitlement (low, medium or high). All primary and secondary tables within this report have breakdowns by each of the above mentioned variables. Data have also been examined by education authority and where relevant, differences are highlighted within the text. The small sample size of special schools does no allow for data to be broken down by other variables. However, to help interpret results in context of primary level and secondary level education, data is presented separately for special schools that provide primary level education and those that provide secondary level education.

School size categories and level of free meal entitlement were derived separately for primary schools and secondary schools. Data for all primary schools in Scotland was examined to identify the frequencies of different school sizes (pupil numbers) and proportions entitled to free meals. In each case the 33rd and 66th percentiles were calculated to identify suitable boundaries for categorisation of small medium and large schools and schools with low, medium and high free meal entitlement. For example the 33rd percentile identifies the maximum number of pupils that the smallest 33% of schools have. The 66th percentile identifies the maximum number of pupils that the next 33% of schools have and, above this point is the 33% of schools with the largest number of pupils. Using the boundaries identified for all primary schools primary schools in the sample were then categorised as being small, medium or large and as having low, medium or high free meal entitlement. The same procedure was used for secondary schools.

« Previous | Contents | Next »