Brian Cambra

CHILDREN’S VOICES IN SCHOOL CHOICE IN ITALY:
MIDDLE SCHOOL TO SECONDARY SCHOOL
Brian Kristopher Cambra

Supervisor: Peter Skagius
Master Thesis in Child Studies, First Year

15 ECTS
LIU-TEMAB/MPCS-A—17/002—SE
School Choice in Italy
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the incredible instructors in the Child Studies department at Linköping
University for all of their energy and passion. They have inspired me to continue in my
pursuit to better understand children and families. Peter Skagius has been an exceptional
supervisor; I would like to thank him for his effective and wise guidance in the development
of this work. I would also like to thank the children and their parents who participated in this
study. Their time and willingness to express how they feel about choosing a secondary school
has helped me better understand their perspective. I appreciate their openness and honesty in
explaining their thoughts and feelings. Most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Maria, and
three children, Benjamin, Rachel, and Olivia, for their willingness to let dad work those extra
hours in getting this thesis complete. They are all significant parts of my life and I would
never accomplish any task without acknowledging their love and support.
Abstract
The main aim in this thesis is to explore children’s voice in the decision-making process of
choosing a secondary school in Italy. This qualitative work is motivated by past research that
has sought to understand the child’s voice in relation to school choice, particularly as children
may encounter stress from educational transitions. Children’s perception of their agency and
voice in school choice guide this study’s research questions and aims. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with four Italian children, two boys and two girls, who are
preparing to transition from middle school (scuola secondaria di primo grado) to secondary
school (scuola secondaria di secondo grado). The interview consisted of open questions that
were designed to give the children an opportunity to make their perspectives known
regarding the decision-making process. In addition to questions and dialogue, the interviews
consisted of a review of school-produced literature to gather the children’s opinions on who
they believe the leaflets primarily target. Thirdly, the interview consisted of a timeline
activity where the children recorded any events they could remember in the decision-making
process. After a thematic analysis was performed on the data material, three primary themes
emerged: 1) being a part of the decision-making process; 2) being disregarded by adults; and
3) being influenced by specific factors. Furthermore, from the first theme, two subthemes
were identified that portray the child as either a primary or a secondary decision-maker.
Key words: child’s voice, school choice, transition, Italy

List of Figures
FIGURE 1. EDUCATION SYSTEM IN ITALY 4

FIGURE 2. ROSA'S TIMELINE 19
FIGURE 3. LUCIA'S TIMELINE 20
FIGURE 4. GIACOMO'S TIMELINE 22
FIGURE 5. PIETRO'S TIMELINE 27
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
SIGNIFICANCE OF EDUCATIONAL TRANSITIONS 1
CHILDREN’S VOICE AND AGENCY 2
EDUCATION SYSTEM IN ITALY 3
MOTIVATION AND RESEARCH AIMS 5
LITERATURE REVIEW 6
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 9
DATA COLLECTION METHODS 12

SELECTION OF INFORMANTS 13
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 13
REVIEW OF PRINTED, SCHOOL-PRODUCED LITERATURE 15
CREATION OF TIMELINE 15
DATA ANALYSIS 16
RESULTS 17
THEME 1: BEING A PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 17
SUBTHEME 1: PRIMARY DECISION-MAKER 17
SUBTHEME 2: SECONDARY DECISION-MAKER 20
THEME 2: DISREGARDED BY ADULTS 23
THEME 3: INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT SCHOOL CHOICE 25
PARENTS 25
SECONDARY SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 27
FUTURE ASPIRATIONS 29
PRACTICALITIES 30
MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS 30
CONCLUSION 31
REFERENCES 34
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE 37
APPENDIX 2: INFORMED CONSENT (PARENT) 38
APPENDIX 3: INFORMED CONSENT (CHILD) 40
APPENDIX 4: SCHOOL-PRINTED MATERIAL 41

School Choice in Italy 1
Introduction
Every year in January throughout Italy, the topic of school choice often dominates the
conversations of parents and their children preparing to transition from middle school to
secondary school. Often these conversations are a mixture of certainty and uncertainty
regarding which school is best for their child’s future. The conversations are driven by a
general sense that school choice will determine the child’s future, for good or for bad. In
many ways, due to Italy’s “early tracking educational structure” (Panichella & Triventi 2014:
667), the transition from middle school to secondary school in Italy is considered one of the
most important decisions that a family will face during a child’s academic career. As a mid-
February deadline forces these families to decide on a secondary school in preparation for the
following academic year, the question emerges: What school to go to? Therefore, in light of
the impact of educational transitions on children across the life span, this thesis considers
how children perceive the process of choosing a secondary school in Italy and what may
potentially influence this decision. To situate the reader in this topic, the following concepts
will first be briefly introduced: 1) the significance of educational transitions, 2) children’s
voice and agency, and 3) the education system in Italy.
Significance of educational transitions

Educational transitions have often been identified as significant and potentially impactful
events in an individual's life. Past research has considered how these events impact the
emotional and social well-being as a person transitions from one educational context to
another. Much focus has been devoted to early life transitions, such as the change from
preschool to primary school. Ahtola et al. (2011), for example, claim that "starting formal
education [primary school] is one of the major transitions in a child's and his or her family's
life" (296). This claim fueled the researchers' study which examined the effectiveness of
cooperative transition practices among Finnish preschools and elementary schools. While
considering specific qualities and characteristics within the Finnish educational system, the
study considered the extent that transitional programs impacted children as they left
preschool and emerged in formal education. The aim and motive of the study represents the
axiom that a healthy bridge between preschool and primary school may predict future
academic performance and overall success in life.
Other research has considered the transition from primary school to secondary school. In a
longitudinal study by Duchesne, Ratelle, and Roy (2011), the effects of worry on the middle
school transition were examined. The study found that the extent of worry predicts emotional
and cognitive adjustment of children in their second year of middle school. The findings
support the hypothesis that transitioning from primary school to middle school causes worry
in some children which in turn negatively affects some aspects of emotional and social well-
being.
The stress associated with the transition from middle school to secondary school is also
worthy of consideration. This transition has been described as “one of the defining
parameters of development in the second decade of life” (Barber & Olsen 2004: 3). Although
more research is necessary to identify these “defining parameters,” most of the existing
research considers the responsibilities of the sending and receiving schools (Ellerbrock &
Kiefer 2013: 174). In other words, the education system is regarded as the primary agent that
determines healthy transitions. Although educational environments should be evaluated and
assessed in studying the transition from middle school to secondary school, the child’s
perception in this educational transition should also be explored.
In understanding educational transitions, the student’s perception of the upcoming
academic transition has been identified as a predictor, determining how well the adolescent
will cope with potential stressors (Elffers & Oort, 2013). More specifically, the student’s
identification of sources of help and support in the transition process become important
factors in understanding the transition process and in better equipping the student to
effectively complete the transition. Effers and Oort (2013), for example, refer to past research
that has identified “school-related encouragement and support at home” (1) as playing an
important role in shaping students' attitudes towards the transition to post-secondary
education. That is, certain factors in a student’s social environment (family and peers)
influence the attitudes towards the transition. Such an understanding of how and why
students form these attitudes and perceptions will assist in identifying adolescents’
perspectives through educational transitions. This study, therefore, recognizes that the
transition from middle school to secondary school is a significant educational milestone that
is impacted by the child’s perspectives, attitudes, and perceptions.
Children’s voice and agency

The concept of children’s voices relates to the new paradigm of the sociology of
childhood or “new social studies of childhood” (Spyrou 2011: 151) in which the child, as a
social actor and agent, is understood and considered. The concept encroaches upon ethical
and legal considerations in an attempt to effectively listen to children’s needs, perspectives,
and wishes (Komulainen 2007: 11). The concept also frequently challenges a developmental
understanding of children. This developmental perspective traditionally advocates that
children’s voices are only valid when a certain age or skill level is attained by the child.
Though the need to give children a voice in social research has grown, the effective
understanding of this voice, which gives “authenticity” to the voice, must also be understood
(Spyrou 2011: 152).
Furthermore, in analyzing the child’s voice, both Komulainen (2007) and Spyrou (2011)
note that there are limits posed by an overemphasis on individualized perspectives. A child’s
voice can therefore only be understood within the sociocultural setting in which it is situated.
Spyrou (2011) notes that children’s voices reflect “certain ideological beliefs and values
which cannot be understood but within the larger historical, cultural and sociopolitical
context” (159) in which it is situated. In the concern for giving children a voice, the
researcher can therefore potentially seek to understand this voice separate from the child’s
space. To respond to this problem, Spyrou presents the need for reflexivity that influences the
research process, from start to finish. This reflexivity considers not only the research method
but it also implements critical thought to how and where the child’s voice is situated. This
study, therefore, seeks to apply these theoretical concepts and consider the cultural and
sociological setting in which the child’s voice pertaining to school choice is expressed.
Education system in Italy

For the purpose of this study, it is helpful to create a background to the education system
in Italy to familiarize the reader with the current educational environment affecting the
middle school to secondary school transition. Panichella and Triventi (2014) trace the current
education system in Italy to the early twentieth century roots of Fascism when the
government divided the education into two primary parts: an academic school and a
vocational school (669). Since the 1920s, Italy has undergone various education reforms in an
attempt to prepare the population for the labor market. Primary and secondary structure was
reformed with the intent of preparing some for vocational schools and others for higher
education. The educational system continues to be a subject of reform today, as the
government further explores possibilities of decentralization in response to economic and
social motivators (Ferrari & Zandardi 2014: 529).
Currently, the Italian education system is divided into five stages. Three of these stages
are considered compulsory. The chart below outlines these stages to clarify terms and names
used in this document.
Stage Italian Names English Names Approximate Compulsory?

Age
I scuola dell’infanzia kindergarten 0-5 No
or asilo preschool
or scuola materna
II scuola primaria or primary school or 6-10 Yes
scuola elementare elementary school
III scuola secondaria di lower secondary 11-13 Yes
primo grado or school or
scuola media middle school
inferiore
IV scuola secondaria di upper secondary 14-19 Yes (until 16)
secondo grado or school or
scuola media secondary school
superiore or or
scuola superior or high school
liceo
V università university or 19 + No
higher education
Figure 1. Education system in Italy
Italy therefore divides secondary school (scuola secondaria) into two parts: first grade and
second grade (lower and upper). The first grade of secondary school will generally be
referred to as “middle school” in this document. The second grade of secondary school takes
on several variants of names in Italy, yet in this document it will be referred to as either “high
school” or “secondary school” as a means to utilize the common English equivalents.
This study considers the transition between these two grades as they represent the break in
the Italian system where the child begins a non-standard track. Up to the final year of middle
school, all children undertake the same basic curriculum consisting of mathematics, English,
science, geography, social studies, physical education, technology, visual arts, and typically a
second foreign language. Beginning in high school (typically age 14), the child begins a
specialized track that incorporates basic subjects such as Italian, mathematics, and history.
Yet at this stage the child attends a school that will focus on a specialized subject such as
foreign languages (liceo classico), economics (istituto economico), or arts and design (liceo
artistico). The type of secondary school, therefore, shapes the future career path for the child
as the specific school will determine either the type of vocation or university degree.
Although a change of secondary school remains possible after enrollment, particularly during
the first two years of secondary school, it is often associated with difficulty and obstacles. For
this reason, the transition from middle school to secondary school represents a critical time as
the child and the parents engage in the decision-making process.
Motivation and Research Aims

As outlined in the introduction, stress associated in the academic transition from middle
school to secondary school is worthy of exploration. Yet this study will not seek to
understand the effects of the transition, rather the child’s perspective of their agency and
voice in the decision-making process of choosing a secondary school. The main motivation in
this study is to hear the child’s voice in school choice and decision making, therefore the
study draws from the premise that children have the right to have their voices heard as
acknowledged by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (Farrell
2005: 167-170). Furthermore, applying the “competence paradigm,” that promotes children’s
capability to be contributors of social science research, forms the foundation of this study
(Hutchby & Moran-Ellis 1998). Danby and Farrell (2005) state that “new perspectives from
the sociology of childhood legitimate children’s rights to participate in (and withdraw from)
research” (51).
This study is also motivated by research that indicates the type of secondary school
diploma earned “affects subsequent educational transitions and labour market outcomes”
(Panichella & Triventi 2014: 667). Secondary school choice in Italy, therefore, may pose
long-term educational and career outcomes due to the “early tracking” education system.
Furthermore, the “early tracking” system may also exacerbate the stress associated with
school choice as children and parents confront potential long-term consequences to their
decision. For this reason, the child’s voice in the school choice process is worthy of
exploration as it potentially affects opportunities and freedom of choice later in life.
The aim of this study, therefore, is to explore the child’s voice in the decision-making
process of choosing a secondary school. Semi-structured interviews with Italian children
were conducted and the analysis of the material was guided by the following questions:
A. How do children perceive their voice influences school choice as they prepare to
transition from middle school (scuola secondaria di primo grado) to secondary school
(scuola secondaria di secondo grado) in Italy?
B. How is agency reflected in their perception of what influenced school choice?
C. How do children perceive the target audiences of school-produced literature that

market school choice?
Literature Review
Past literature, both ethnographic and empirical, assist in forming the motivation and
foundation of this study. Some past studies specifically relate to my study as they explore
children’s voices in relation to school choice. Cotnam-Kappel’s (2014), for example,
conducted ethnographic research on youth voice in choosing a high school in Ontario. The
study provides a Canadian perspective that conceptualizes child’s agency in the decision-
making process. The article considers the ramifications of school choice in Canada due to the
English and French-speaking options. The premise of Cotnam-Kappel’s (2014) work is based
on the new sociology of childhood that insist every child has a voice and the adult should
listen (146). The author identifies her own need for reflexivity as a necessary process to
understanding her own voice as a researcher, whereby she emphasizes that listening to
children’s voices will help her find her own (156).
In analyzing the ethnographic data, Cotnam-Kappel (2014) comments on the “numerous
ways that youth participants provided insights into the particularities of the school choice
process” (155). The concept of children’s voice contributed to the understanding of how
children perceived they had a say in choosing their secondary school. Although this research
highlights language of instruction as a primary motivator in the school selection process, the
importance of listening to the child’s voice was both a theoretical and practical underpinning
of the research methods. Significantly, Cotnam-Kappel (2014) notes that the majority of
research conducted on school choice focuses on the “role of parents in the school choice
process and fails to consider the experience of youth” (143).
Another study by Sargeant and Gillett-Swan (2015) explores the role of children’s voice
in educational settings, while purposely investigating the teachers’ control of the decision-
making process in the classroom. Though their study does not specifically consider children’s
voice as it pertains to school choice, it does apply principles of the children’s rights to make
their voice heard as it relates to education practice and as expressed by the UNCRC (178). In
analyzing commentaries from over 1000 children (mean age of 11) from Australia, Sweden,
New Zealand, Italy, and England, specific themes were identified that express the children’s
perceptions of how adults acknowledge their capacity. The study concludes by noting that
“the children’s obvious dissatisfaction with their current situation highlights the importance
of voice-inclusive practice in education” (183).
The overall findings from Sargeant and Gillet-Swan’s (2015) study focus on children’s
perceptions that their voice is not being heard in educational settings. Significantly, the study
is representative of five countries, all of which embrace the UNCRC while also seeking to
reform educational practices to comply with socio-democratic ideologies. Yet the participants
still do not perceive their voice is acknowledged by adults. The findings suggest the need to
move beyond traditional education practices that may ignore the child’s voice and support a
voice-inclusive approach (188). Sargeant and Gillet-Swan’s (2015) exploration of children’s
voice in the educational setting is therefore relevant to my study in an attempt to provide the
children with an opportunity to make their perspective known.
Whereas Sargeant and Gillet-Swan (2015) explored the concept of the child’s voice in the
classroom, Miriam, West, and Ribbens (1994) investigated the process of choosing secondary
schools in London. Their study is of particular relevance to my study as it both recognizes
and evaluates the decision-making process of choosing a secondary school. The study
examined data from interviews with 70 parents and 134 children preparing to transition to
secondary school. The primary aim was to identify which family member makes the final
school decision. Considering several various social, family, and child characteristics, the
study found that mothers tended to make the decision in most families. Significantly, the
study considered the extent to which children influenced school choice, and found that
although the clear majority (97 percent) of children claimed to have talked with parents about
school choice, overall the children “did not have the main responsibility for the decision”
(53). Though this research provides solid existing literature for the premise of my thesis, it
also reflects the need to pursue a more contemporary investigation relevant to the cultural and
modern-day specifics of Italian children.
Since my study specifically explores school choice in Italy, it is also important to consider
past research that notes cultural and sociological perspectives relevant to Italy. Woodhouse
(2014) compares participation rights of children in Italy and the United States as a means to
identify the positive effects of children’s rights on family and community life. Drawing from
a legal perspective, the article presents the assumption that Italy’s adherence to the UNCRC,
in addition to Italy’s historical and religious emphases on the family, creates a more solid
platform for the child’s voice. Although the author clarifies that it is “impossible to quantify”
the effects of greater children’s participatory rights on family, community, and school
experiences (367), the author infers that greater participatory rights renders a more prominent
voice which will positively impact the overall well-being of the child. Woodhouse (2014)
concludes that “perhaps Italian attitudes towards children’s participation have played a role in
preserving family and social solidarity and enhancing child well-being” (367).
Whereas the above research considers children’s voice in school choice, much research
has broadly investigated the general decision-making process in school choice. One study
specifically considered factors that influence parental choices of school in the new
educational market of Dushanbe, Tajikistan (Whistel 2014). This study highlights factors
such as costs, location, teachers, and curriculum. The purpose of the study was to illustrate
how such factors interact in an emerging educational system. Interestingly, the study initiated
with the presumption and axiom that the parents ultimately make the decision of schooling.
This, therefore, is an example of research that considers the factors that influence parental
decision, yet ignores the child’s voice. This may be attributed to a combination of cultural
and new education market influences in Tajikistan. Therefore, the question of whether any of
these factors apply to a different culture and older education system in Italy, with different
norms, remains worthy of investigation.
In considering the choice of secondary schools in Italy, past research has sought to
understand inequalities in school choice based on social origin and socioeconomic status
(Barone 2009; Ballarino et al. 2009, Ballarino & Schadee 2010). Attention has been
specifically devoted to Italy since “the Italian education system is characterized by a
relatively early tracking” (Panichella & Triventi 2014: 667). Yet Panichella and Triventi
(2014) note that although Italy shares an “early tracking” approach to education with other
European countries, such as Germany, the family of origin plays more of a significant role in
choosing a school compared to other countries (667). Effects of family origin on school
choice suggest that power is shifted to families in making the decision, yet this power tends
to be based in economic and social mechanisms, reflecting an inequality in school choice
(Panichella & Triventi 2014: 672-673). Although historical and empirical research identify
family of origin as an influential factor in determining secondary school choice, the role of
child’s voice within family influences has not been specifically identified or considered.
The impact of external factors on decision-making has fueled other studies to specifically
consider self-efficacy on school and career choice (Chiesa, Massei, & Guglielmi 2016;
Pizzorno, et al. 2014). Chiesa, Massei, and Guglielmi (2016), for example, considered the
effects of a vocational guidance program on fostering young adults’ self-efficacy and thereby
alleviating anxiety associated with school choice. Parental involvement was also identified in
their study as an influential component of the vocational guidance program (214). Although
this study considers career choice in Italy rather than secondary school choice, its findings are
relevant since the high school choice that occurs during middle school is closely connected
with career choice. The type of high school attended often predicts future higher education
and career options in Italy (Panichella & Triventi 2014: 667). Therefore, as research
investigates the anxieties and stressors associated with the school to work transition, so
should research consider the middle school to secondary school transition, and its associated
stressors.
Therefore, although much past research has considered the school’s responsibility in the
middle school to secondary school transition (Ellerbrock & Kiefer 2013: 174), past literature
also highlights that some societies, such as Italy, face added stress during this transition due
to the necessity of choosing a secondary school. Past literature also identifies parents and
family as the primary support systems in this decision-making process. Other studies outside
of Italy have considered variables when investigating parental influence on choosing schools,
such as children with special needs (Byrne et al. 2013). Yet there is no known research that
specifically investigates the children’s perception of their voice when choosing a high school
in Italy.
Ethical Considerations
This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Vetting Board at Linköping
University, Sweden. The vetting board determined the appropriateness of this study’s design
according to ethical and legislative requirements. Since interviews were conducted with
children outside of school contexts, institutional approval was not necessary in the vetting
process. The informants and their parents were the primary gatekeepers and initial formal
consent by both child and parent was necessary to participate in this study. The informed
consent process communicated information about the research that may have influenced the
decision to participate in the interview (Silverman 2015: 149). Yet, upon engaging in the
consent process, none of the participants decided not to participate in the study. Furthermore,
consent forms ensured that the informants understood that their participation was voluntary
and that they could have withdrawn from the interviews at any time. Confidentiality and
privacy were emphasized and expressed in the informed consent process.
The limitations of informed consent should also be acknowledged in outlining the ethical
considerations. Silverman (2015) notes that the changing nature of qualitative studies,
especially when involving open interviews, may cause variations in the interview that diverge
from the originally expressed intent (154). This potential divergence is therefore
acknowledged here in these ethical considerations, as “the very act of being alert to such
potential issues is a hallmark of the ethical researcher” (Silverman 2015: 154).
Interviews separate from parents were chosen to provide an opportunity for children to
express their voice without the potential interference or persuasion from parents. Conducting
an interview alone with a child poses ethical issues that are worthy of consideration. It was
therefore paramount that both the parent(s) and child were aware and comfortable with this
setting. In ensuring that awareness and comfort were established, the interview setting was
clearly described in the initial recruitment and informed consent process. It was also
emphasized that the parent was to remain in close proximity to the interview setting.
Furthermore, they had the option to sit in on the interview had they preferred. If they decided
to sit out of the interview, they were ensured that they maintain the right and freedom to enter
the room at any time had they felt uncomfortable and wished to terminate the interview.
Ensuring the participants remained comfortable throughout the interview addresses the
importance of ongoing consent in the interview process. After conducting the four interviews,
no parent expressed discomfort in the interview being conducted in this format, nor did any
parent or child request the interview be terminated.
In emphasizing the importance of ongoing consent, Marrow (2005) presents the specific
ethical considerations that pertain to a research project that investigated children “having a
say in decisions” (157-158). These ethical considerations emphasize the ongoing
collaboration between the child and researcher. In applying Marrow’s (2005) suggestions, I
clearly introduced myself and the purpose of the research. To emphasize their capability as
contributors of research, I communicated that their participation will help me find out about
their opinions. Danby and Farrell (2005) also emphasize the importance of using the opening
of the research conversation as a means to foster the children’s competence (50).
Since this research will be carried out in Italy, ethical considerations relevant to Italian
law and ethical governing boards were also considered. It is a challenge to identify the
specific procedures to obtain ethical approval for social science research in Italy. Italy is
among other countries in continental Europe that have not yet introduced clear control of
ethical practices concerning human participants (Israel, 2015, p. 62). Although specific
guidelines have been created pertaining to bioethical research (Italian National Bioethics
Committee), social science remains more ambiguous. The European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights compared European countries’ policies on child participation in
research, noting that Italy mostly emphasizes privacy issues when concerning research with
children, as outlined by the Code of Ethics of the National Data Protection Authority
(Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014). Yet in their assessment, the agency noted that
informed consent is required from both the child (if child has ability to understand the
request), and the parent.
Furthermore, Montù (2015) states that individual universities overseeing the study
typically act as the approving boards when conducting social science research (p. 30). In
approving research with children, these universities consult the code of ethics outlined by the
Italian Association of Psychology (Associazione Italiana di Psicologia) approved on 27
March 2015. In Article 1.6 of this code, it is expressly stated that minors, among other
“vulnerable” members, have both the right to participate and to be protected in research.
Power relations between the participant and researcher is also inferred in this article as it
states “the distinction between research activities and professional practice and teachings”
(Associazione Italiana di Psicologia 2015: Article 1.6) must be clearly identified to avoid
misunderstandings. In other words, the purpose of the research must be clearly expressed in
the informed consent per the ethical code.
Article 3.1 of the code of ethics further states that the researcher should make the findings
of the study available to the participants. In the case of minors, according to this article, the
parents or legal guardians should be able to access the results. Furthermore, Article 11.4
defers authority of assessing and approving ethical issues concerning research with human
subjects to the university that is supervising the study.
In response to ethical considerations relevant to Italy, this study therefore satisfies the
recommended ethics outlined by the Associazione Italiana di Psicologia. Specifically, this
study ensured that:
1. the children had both the right to participate and to be protected.
2. informed consent was obtained by both the children and their parents.
3. the intent of the study as research-focused was clearly expressed.
4. findings are available to both the children and their parents at the end of the study.
5. approval from the Linkoping University serves as proper assessment and approval of
ethical issues.
Furthermore, the interview questions could have disclosed personal family issues that may
have created sensitive and ethical issues. Although in general the questions do not seek to
reveal private family issues, it is possible that the child could have shared such issues leading
to personal disclosure. Ethically, this study considered this potential disclosure and the
researcher was prepared to deal with it appropriately, enforcing confidentiality and
sensitivity, had it occurred.
The awareness of potential power relations that may have caused discomfort or
awkwardness during the interview process was also considered. The use of school printed
literature was therefore used not only as a form of data material but also as a means to reduce
awkwardness and to elicit conversation. The timeline exercise was also provided as both a
tool to gather data and a means to allow the children to engage in the interview process by
contributing a product. The aim here was to help alleviate awkwardness and thereby provide
a tool for the children to express themselves beyond verbal responses to the interview
questions. These methods further addressed ethical considerations in the ongoing
collaboration necessary throughout the interview.
Finally, in discussing ethical considerations for this study, the personal aim and
motivation for conducting this research was continuously evaluated. As Silverman (2015)
counsels, ethically the researcher must not see himself or herself as merely a “technician”
(139), but must also think reflectively through this research process: “Why I am researching
this topic?” and “Is my motivation truly to help with the results?” These self-reflection
questions were important in creating the ethical underpinnings of the study that also affected
the ethical practicalities of research design, methods, and analysis.
Data Collection Methods

As the primary motivation in answering this research question is to understand the child’s
voice in school choice, a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews was chosen.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four children in their third year of middle
school who are preparing to transition to secondary school. These students recently
experienced and confronted the decision-making process, as high school registration occurred
within 2 months prior to the date of the interviews. The interviews lasted approximately 20
minutes to allow the children to express their involvement and agency in the decision-making
process. Each interview was digitally recorded and later transcribed. No notes were taken in
the interview process to allow both engagement and observation between the researcher and
child.
As this study seeks to construct meaning of children’s voices in school choice, a

constructionist approach to gathering data was followed. The construction of knowledge
obtained in the interviews is important since it represents the meaning the informants use to
represent their perception, rather than conveying absolute truth or fact (Silverman, 2015). The
interviews consisted of three main parts: 1) Interview questions; 2) Review of printed,
school-produced literature; and 3) Creation of time-line.
Selection of informants
Four children in their last year of middle school were interviewed in northeast Italy. Two
of the informants are girls and two are boys. All of the informants were 13 years old at the
time of the interview. The children represent four different middle schools, all located in
different cities. Three of the informants are attending public Italian school, and one is
attending a private international school. Selection of the informants was not based on school
attendance nor does this study consider which school the child attends in the analysis. Some
contact with the children had been formed in the past via mutual friendships and
relationships, yet there is no professional relations with the informants.
As the participants were recruited through personal acquaintances, the parents were
initially asked if they would like their children to participate in the study. Recruitment,
therefore, took place entirely outside of the school and the interviews were conducted off
school property in the participants’ home. Therefore, the participants did not associate the
interview as a school-sponsored research project. Home interviews outside of school grounds
assisted in providing a comfortable and informal environment for the child while also
disassociating the study from the school. Both the parents and children were informed of the
purpose and procedure of the study and interview during the recruitment process.
Interview questions
In conducting the interview, open questions were formed as a means to “elicit
respondents’ perceptions” (Silverman 2015: 199). The interview questions, therefore, were
formed with the intention to allow the informants to “answer in their own terms” (Bryman
2004: 145). This intent is key for the purpose of this study which is rooted in giving the
children an opportunity to make their perspectives regarding school choice known. The
following questions were prepared in the interview guide to assist the process:
1. Where will you be going to high school?

The purpose of this question was not to identify the type of school, rather to be a
starting point to elicit conversation. The question was designed to give the child an
opportunity to elaborate on the school, and to see if the child will begin to describe
the process of choosing this school without further invocation.
2. Tell me about how that school was chosen?

This question was posed in a passive voice to allow the children to put their own
voice into the response. Originally, the question Tell me about how you came to
choose that school was written in the interview guide. However further reflection on
that wording suggested the child may feel they should have been the one to make the
choice. For this reason, more passive wording was used to maintain an open question.
Furthermore, the words “tell me about” suggest the child has an open opportunity to
share the process.
3. How do you feel about the decision?

Again, the purpose of this question was to allow the children to freely express their
feelings about the decision regardless of who they perceive made the decision.
4. Would you change the decision if you could? How?

This question was primarily designed to explore the children’s perception of their
agency in the decision-making process.
5. Looking back, who or what would you say had the most influence in making the final
decision for which high school you will attend?
This question further sought to explore both the child’s perception of voice and
agency in the decision-making process. Importantly, both concepts of “who” and
“what” were included in the phrasing of this question to keep the possible influences
as open as possible.
Furthermore, throughout the interview, questions such as “Can you tell me more about that?”
and “Why?” were posed as a means to further invoke the children’s perspective and to
maintain open questions in the interview.
In creating and conducting a semi-structured interview, the collaborative nature of the

interview process was also emphasized. In their discussion of interviewing young children,
Danby et al. (2011) express the importance of recognizing interviewing as a “collaborative
activity” (82). Yet in emphasizing the importance of collaboration in the process of gathering
data, the question of power relations between interviewer and interviewee also emerged.
Paradoxically, in the quest to understand the perceptions of child voice in this research study,
the child’s voice could have been deafened as certain issues of power are interjected in the
child-adult interview setting. The children may not have felt that they could freely expressed
themselves in the interview process. In response to this paradox, emphasis was given to the
intent and purpose of the interview. In acknowledging that the children could have potentially
felt that they were being evaluated for making a right or wrong decision, each interview was
prefaced with the importance to simply explore the decision-making process, rather than
evaluate how it was done.
Review of printed, school-produced literature

In addition to collecting data from interview questions and dialogue, this study sought the
informants’ opinions of printed material (natural data) as a means to further understand the
child’s perspective pertaining to school choice. The primary purpose of incorporating this
printed material was to understand how the children perceive the target audience. Random
printed material available to students at a middle school was collected and presented in the
interview process (see Appendices 4, 5, and 6 for sample pages of these leaflets). The printed
material provided effective artifacts to invoke conversation about school choice while also
providing an opportunity for the child to make their voice heard regarding the effectiveness
of school-produced material and their opinion of the intended audience. The material was
helpful in identifying the child’s voice as it interacts with social structure during this
educational transition.
Creation of timeline
Finally, an activity involving the creation of a timeline was conducted during the
interview. A blank time-line (consisting of a single line) was provided and the children were
asked to construct a timeline that depicts events they can remember in the decision-making
process of choosing a secondary school. This activity remained very open to the children’s
choice of events to allow an opportunity for them to express their voice. They were asked to
“think back to the first event that involved choosing a secondary school to the final moment a
decision was made” and then to document these events on the provided timeline. Two of the
informants required further explanation, as they did not know what types of events to
document. I therefore reiterated the instructions by emphasizing “any” event, as a means to
emphasize they had freedom to identify anything that represented the decision-making
process? Furthermore, two of the informants are bilingual in English and Italian and they
elected to complete their timeline activity in English.
Data Analysis
A thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts from the semi-structured interviews,
including responses to the interview questions, a review of printed material, and a creation of
a timeline that documents significant events in the decision-making process. The interviews
were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used as a
method to create and identify patterns in the narrative text that seek to answer the research
questions. Braun and Clarke (2006) describe thematic analysis as “a method for identifying,
analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (79). Themes in the data material that
represent the children’s perception of how their voice influenced the school choice were
therefore analyzed. To conduct this analysis, the following steps were followed. These steps
are based on Braun and Clarke’s discussion on the process of thematic analysis (2006: 87).
1. The data material was thoroughly read. General ideas about the text that are
derived from observations were also be noted.
2. Specific repetition of words was noted that may be associated with general
themes. Explicitness of the transcript was also observed, noting not only what the
child said but how he/she said it.
3. Initial codes were generated based on responses that represent child’s voice. Text
that represents the child’s voice in the decision process was noted. Text that
represents a lack of the child’s voice in the decision process was also noted.
4. A review of the codes was then performed to assess if any of the codes can be
merged together or better identified.
When coding, an inductive process was applied to give meaning to the text. A thematic
analysis of the informants’ discussions address the research questions by exploring their
perception of voice in choosing a secondary school. Three primary themes were formed in
analyzing this text. First, the children reported being a part of the decision-making process.
Within this theme, two subthemes emerged that portray the child as either a primary or a
secondary decision-maker. Second, perceptions of being disregarded by adults appeared.
And third, the children identified being influenced by specific factors in the decision-making
process. Several subthemes rooted in these identified factors further emerged from the
analysis. Subthemes of factors that affected school choice include: parents, high school
environment, future aspirations, and practicalities. For the purpose of confidentiality and
readability, the following pseudonyms are assigned to the informants in the Results section:
Lucia, Pietro, Rosa, and Giacomo.
Results
Theme 1: Being a part of the decision-making process

Children having a voice in the decision-making process emerged as a primary theme. For
the children in this study, being in control and an active agent in choosing a high school was
represented in both the interviews and timeline activities. However, further analysis reveals
different levels of agency, as each child expressed varying extents of confidence and
involvement in the decision-making process. For this reason, two subthemes were further
delineated as a means to describe how children perceive their part in the decision-making
process: primary decision-maker and secondary decision-maker.
Subtheme 1: primary decision-maker

Lucia, a 13-year old female who will be attending “liceo artistico” (art high school),
stands out as expressing several emphatic and conclusive statements regarding how the
decision was made. When initiating the interview discussion, the informant seemed prepared
and confident as she began describing the decision-making process.
Researcher: You have already decided where you will go to high school?
Lucia: Yes, I have already decided to go to liceo artistico. And then, probably
in the third year [of high school] I will do architecture and then eventually university.
Her response indicated her control of not only which high school she will attend, but also her
future plans for university. Throughout the interview, Lucia clearly identified that she was the
primary decision maker in choosing the secondary school; she specifically remembered
making the decision early in her second year of middle school:
I was a little indecisive at first between liceo artistico and lingustico, but given that I
prefer to draw I chose artistico.
When asked who made the final decision, Lucia clearly stated “Me.” with a smile, and
without any hesitation. She then described the extent of her solitary decision by explaining:
My professors were also [in addition to parents] recommending liceo scientifico but I
don’t like mathematics so…
Throughout the interview with Lucia, I and me were repeatedly used in her description of the
decision-making process.
Pietro, a 13-year old boy preparing to transition to a specialized high school in cooking,
also expressed himself as a primary decision-maker. When asked to explain how the school
decision was made, Pietro also repeatedly used I to describe the process:
OK… so I was feeling… thinking that I like to cook and I tried some cooking at home
and I was good at it. So I was a little indecisive at the time whether or not to do
electrical school or cooking school, but in the end I chose cooking.
To further explore Pietro’s perception of who was the primary decision-maker, I asked him
specifically who decided to enroll in the cooking school.
Oh, I did. But my mother was, let’s say, the one responsible. But I decided that it
would be the best school to do.
Early in the interview, Rosa, a 13-year old female, referred to her own plans and desires as
the primary influence to choosing a non-traditional, English-speaking online school:
Well, mainly because I want to live in America when I grow up and I know that the
school system here isn’t good at all, and I would rather do something that I enjoy
doing.
Similar to both Lucia and Pietro, Rosa emphasizes the personal pronoun in describing how
the decision was made. Expressions such as I want, I know, and I enjoy reflect her self-
perception as the primary decision-maker. Rosa’s timeline activity also displayed the
repetitive use of the personal pronoun I as a further possible expression of agency in the
decision-making process. In identifying key events that led to the final school decision, she
entered the following chronological events:
1. I wanted to do [name of high school]/went to the open day at [name of high

school]
2. At the “stage” [internship] I didn’t like the system and they said the minimum
of homework was 6 hours/wanted to do [name of non-traditional online high
school]
3. “Stage [internship]” The school looked and felt like a prison (I chose [name of
non-traditional online high school])
4. My friends from high school keep telling bad stories about the school (I made
my final decision)
Figure 2. Rosa's timeline

In each of the four events, Rosa uses strong language to express her perception of agency.
Not only is there a repetition of the personal pronoun I, but there are also frequent uses of I
wanted, I didn’t like, wanted to do, I chose, and I made my final decision, representing her
sense of voice in the decision-making process.
Lucia’s timeline, although limited in information, supported her confidence depicted in
the interview:
1. Year 2 middle: First time I thought about secondary school

2. At beginning of 3rd year of middle school [last year] chose liceo artistico
3. Today
According to her timeline, she initiated the decision-making process with her inscription:
Year 2 middle: first time I thought about secondary school. And just as her first recorded
timeline event reflects her perceived agency and voice in the decision-making process, so
does the simplicity and finality of the second event which indicates when she arrived to the
final decision. It is noteworthy that Lucia signifies she made the decision early in the third
year of middle school, even though registration is not made until mid-February of that
academic year.
Figure 3. Lucia's timeline
Subtheme 2: secondary decision-maker

In further considering the theme of children being a part of the decision-making process,
other data material reflects less of a confident perspective on their voice in the decision-
making process, thereby creating a second subtheme. This subtheme captures the notion that
although some children believe they are a part of the decision-making process, they view
themselves more as the secondary decision-maker rather than the primary decision-maker.
Giacomo, a 13 year old male, is the only child in this study who does not yet know which
high school he will be attending. Giacomo attributed this inconclusiveness to the possible
attendance at a private school that does not require enrollment in February. He acknowledged
that his parents were going to make the final decision.
Researcher: When that decision is made, who do you think will have the biggest
influence on the final decision?
Giacomo: My parents. Because they’re the people who will decide what I will do
in the future. Obviously, I have a choice, as well, of what school I will go to… yeah,
but mostly my parents are the main influence.
Significantly, even in his reflection of his parents making the final choice, he substantiates
his response with “obviously, I have a choice.” In an attempt to further understand how the
informant perceives his parents as the primary decision-makers in choosing a secondary
school, I asked him if he thinks he will be happy with any decision that they will make.
Well, most decisions yeah. But my parents aren’t so keen on the state schools in Italy
because… [hesitates]… and I don’t like them too much either. They give a lot of
homework and it’s not like… like… [hesitates].. yeah.
Although Giacomo clearly identified his parents as the primary decision makers in the
school choice process, he seemed to identify their final choice as an extension of his. In other
words, both the parents’ and his dislike for state schools harmonize to create a cooperative
final decision. In this way, the child still perceives himself as involved in the decision-
making process, even though he views his parents as the final decision-makers. For this
reason, Giacomo appears to view himself as a part of the decision-making process, yet in the
secondary role.
In Giacomo’s more cooperative voice with his parents, he utilizes more of a passive voice
in the timeline activity. He refrains from using I and identifies the following four
chronological events in the decision-making process:
1. Talks with parents

2. Visiting state schools

3. Talking to parents about final decision
4. Decision of the school
Figure 4. Giacomo's timeline
It is unclear, therefore, whether events 2 and 4 are specifically referring to himself, his
parents, or perhaps both. Yet events 1 and 3 clearly indicate the cooperative process of school
choice according to his perspective. It appears, in Giacomo’s timeline, the final decision
(event 4) occurs only after he has spoken to his parents about the final decision. Therefore,
although I is not used in Giacomo’s timeline events, the concept of his part in the decision-
making process appears as a secondary voice. Giacomo therefore depicts the concept of the
child’s voice working together with the parents’ authority, who is identified as the primary
decision-maker who will make the final decision.
Rosa, who at times perceived herself as the primary decision-maker as presented in the
first subtheme, also acknowledged that her school decision was finalized in cooperation with
her parents. As I further investigated Rosa’s perspective on who made the final decision, the
informant manifested a mixed response as she reflected on the decision-making process.
Researcher: So who would you say made the final decision?

Rosa: Probably my parents. In the end, I mean, I did. But they influenced it a lot too.
Researcher: So do you think you had a part in the decision making process?
Rosa: Yeah. They still considered my opinion and my ideas. And they based
everything off of that.
Pietro also communicates this sense of cooperation as he reflects throughout the interview
and identifies who made the final decision:
My parents made the final decision. But their decision was based on what I wanted. I
think they only decided according to what they knew I wanted to do.
Importantly, when exploring children’s voices in this decision-making process, Pietro,

Rosa, and Giacomo all show an awareness that their voice works in cooperation with their
parents. According to the children’s perspective, although their parents may make the final
decision, this decision is only made in harmony and in response to their desires, plans, and
well-being.
Theme 2: Disregarded by adults

Another theme that emerged from the data analysis pertains to the children’s perception of
being disregarded by adults in the decision-making process. Although interview data
contributed some material, the informants’ perceptions of the school-produced literature was
the primary source that formed this theme. As stated in the methods section, the primary
purpose of incorporating this printed material was to respond to the research question that
seeks to understand how the children perceive the intended target audience. The assumption
in using the printed material was that the children’s perspective on the purpose and function
of the printed material may reveal their general perspective towards how schools recognize
their voice in the decision-making process. All four informants clearly identified parents as
the primary target audience of the school-printed material. When the informants were asked,
Who do you think the schools had in mind when they produced this literature? They all
identified parents as the primary audience.
Specific detail from the informants further reveal their perceptions of the school literature.
Giacomo, for example, explained his reasoning for why he thinks they are intended to target
parents:
Because they’re [parents] the ones who go to the school to check them out and see if
it’s okay. I think they make these so the parents will read it and they think good
thoughts about the school.
Rosa noted that perhaps the literature was meant to be “for the students” but only so that they
would transmit the information to the parents. She initially identified the students as the
primary audience, but then quickly emphasized that perhaps the parents were the primary
intended target.
Ummm… probably the kids, but even the parents. They wanted the parents to think it
is a good school for the kids.
Rosa further noted that the printed material was probably designed for the parents to
influence school choice. This assessment represents her perspective that a child’s voice could
potentially be disregarded as the schools seek to influence the parental decision-making.
Even when explaining the purpose of visiting high schools during the decision-making
season, Rosa comments:
Probably so that we [the students] would tell the parents what the school is like, so
they could impress the parents and send the kids there. Because if the school wasn’t
good they probably wouldn’t want to send their kids there. They wouldn’t learn
anything.
Rosa’s comments reflect her general perception that children can be disregarded by adults as
schools recognize parents as the primary agents in the decision-making process. She
identifies the school’s desire to “impress the parents” with both printed material and school
visits. Then, she further identifies parents as the deciding agents.
Furthermore, two of the informants, Pietro and Giacomo, explained that the printed
material does not appear to be created for students due to their visual design, in reference to a
lack of graphics and “boring” material. When asked which of the literature would best be
suited for the students, Giacomo identified one of the leaflets (see Appendix 5) as most
targeted to students due to its representation of technological equipment. Then, he identified a
leaflet containing a photo of students playing sports (see Appendix 6):
Mmmmm… like, aesthetically, I would say, like, more of like, this one [Appendix 6] is
more for students.
Researcher: Why?
Giacomo: Just the graphics and colors. And they have happy students.
Lucia laughed when she was asked if she had seen any of the printed literature, referring
to the plethora of material placed in the middle schools. She then distinguished that the
literature is “definitely for the parents” whereas school tours are for the students. Her
reasoning is based in her belief that parents are more concerned about the subjects offered by
the school, whereas students are more interested in the overall school environment. When
describing this distinction, she pointed to one of the information leaflets that listed the
school’s subjects (see Appendix 4).
Lucia’s reference to potentially being disregarded by adults in school choice was further
reflected occasionally throughout the interview. Despite identifying herself as the primary
decision-maker, she also acknowledged that both her parents and teachers were advising her
to attend a scientific high school, even though she doesn’t like mathematics. In Lucia’s
recollection of how her middle school teachers and parents recommended a scientific school,
she appeared to conceptualize their disregard for her own preference. She seemed to interpret
their advice as “what they think is best,” rather than “what I think is best.” Significantly, her
reaction illustrates her ability to identify a potential disregard by adults while also expressing
her agency in confronting it. Lucia’s comments, therefore, join the other children’s
perceptions of occasionally being disregarded by adults in the decision-making process.
Theme 3: Influences that affect school choice

The third theme pertains to how the children identified specific factors that influenced the
school choice. This theme can be understood in light of the previous two themes that
underscore the children’s perception of their voice in the decision-making process and their
recognition that schools and social structure potentially disregard their voice, based on their
perceived target audience for the printed literature. In the interview with the children, several
subthemes that involve the children’s perception of what influences school choice can be
discerned. These subthemes are parents, secondary school environment, future aspirations,
and practicalities.
Parents
As presented in Theme 1, variant degrees of parental involvement in the decision-making
process were reported by the four informants. Within this variation, parental influence in
choosing a secondary school can also be extracted as a subtheme when identifying the
different influential factors. Regardless of whether the child views him/herself as a primary
or secondary decision-maker, parents emerged as players in the decision-making process.
Lucia, for example, represented the highest degree of agency, yet she still made several
references to her parents, even though her references sometimes reflected a disharmony in the
decision-making process. When describing the final decision, she elaborates on the efficacy
in her decision-making by stating:
I wasn’t influenced much by teachers or my parents.
Yet, the other informants clearly identify their parents as influential factors in the
decision-making process. This influence not only speaks of parents making the final decision,
as identified to some extent by Rosa, Pietro, and Giacomo, but also the process in arriving to
that decision. As previously noted in Giacomo’s interview, he clearly identified his parents as
the “main influence” in making the final choice. Similarly, Rosa identified parents as a
significant influence when asked who made the final decision:
Probably my parents. In the end, I mean, I did. But they influenced it a lot too.
As previously inferred, Rosa also perceives that parental influence plays a role in her peers’
school choice. When referring to the target audience of the school literature, she identified
the schools’ motivation to produce the material for the parents:
They wanted the parents to think it is a good school for the kids.
This is indicative of her perception that parents have an influence in school choice, therefore
schools target parents as an effective way to affect the decision-making process.
Furthermore, Pietro referred to school choice as “my decision,” indicating his sense of
agency and voice in the decision-making process. Yet he also acknowledged that his mother
influenced his decision. This acknowledgement is further reflected in his timeline activity.
Though he provided minimal information with only two events that he believes significantly
led to the final decision, he articulates the second event as My mother when she was asking
me what I want to do when I grow up. This event speaks of Pietro’s part in the decision-
making process while also clearly identifying his mother’s role in this process.
Figure 5. Pietro's timeline
Secondary school environment

Throughout the interviews and timeline exercises, all four informants made specific
references to the secondary school environment as influencing school choice. The secondary
school environment was particularly articulated in references to school tours as effective
ways to see what the school is like, thereby influencing the decision. The importance of
school tours emerged several times during Lucia’s interview. When sharing her perspective
on the school literature, she noted that the tours were much more effective than the leaflets in
helping her decide. She also noted that observing the secondary school students and
professors during a school tour was the primary influencing factor.
Neither Giacomo nor Rosa specifically mentioned school tours in the interview, however
both identified visiting schools as significant events on the timeline that represent the
decision-making process. Giacomo simply wrote “visiting state schools” as his second entry.
Whereas three of the four entries by Rosa where based on school visitations. This represents
the impact school tours and visits had on her as she reflects on the decision-making process.
Pietro also noted that although school tours may not serve to be the primary influencing
factor, they may help a student finalize his/her decision.
I would say they’re [school tours] to help you clarify some ideas. Say, for example if
you are indecisive between two schools, like I was saying before.
Pietro’s reflection is therefore significant as he states “like I was saying before.” He was
referring to his own personal state of indecisiveness between two schools, and therefore
suggests here that seeing the secondary school environment during a school tour served to
clarify his ideas and to make a final decision. Pietro’s agency in his decision-making process
is further reflected here as he identifies influential factors in school choice.
Other components in the high school environment can be further extracted as influencing
school choice. Lucia and Giacomo both referred to social milieu as an important
consideration. When asked to identify the primary thing that influenced her decision, Lucia
responded:
For me, the thing that influenced me the most was how the kids were in the school,
because it showed that they were enjoying themselves.
Giacomo referred to his previous experience with cooking at home as one of the reasons he
eventually chose cooking school rather than electrical school. Later in the interview,
Giacomo then associated his experience and enjoyment with cooking with the social milieu
of high school:
I think it’s important to do something you’re good at because you’ll also be doing it
with other students who like it. You know… you can learn together and it makes a
better experience.
Giacomo and Rosa did not specifically refer to social milieu in the interview, however
Rosa referenced “friends from high school” in the timeline activity who kept telling her “bad
stories about the school.” It is unclear whether these bad stories pertain to social milieu that
may have influenced her final decision, or some other unspecified factors.
Lastly, in discussing the subtheme of secondary school environment as an influence on
school choice, Lucia referred to high school professors as one of the key influences to affect
her decision. When describing her visitation of schools, she noted that she observed:
… the way the professors were interacting with the kids, because they were joking
around with the students and it showed they love their work, because I like it when the
professors love the subject they are teaching.
She returned to this influence later in the interview, when identifying what primarily
influenced her choice compared with what primarily influenced her parents’ choice:
Because, honestly, when I went around visiting the schools I listened more to the
professors, as my parents were looking at what subjects were being offered, while I
was looking more at how the professors were making an impression on me and the
school in general.
Importantly, Lucia specifically remembered the secondary school teachers when visiting the
schools. For her, the teachers influenced the school environment which “made an
impression” on her and ultimately affected her decision. Her recollection significantly
contributes to the overall data that suggest that the secondary school environment, whether
shaped by school tours or social milieu, is a key factor that influences school choice.
Future aspirations
Specific future aspirations and goals emerged as an influential factor for both female
informants. Lucia noted her specific plans to go to university to study architecture. Her future
plans, therefore, influenced her decision to attend liceo artistico, to better prepare her for
university. Rosa, who will be attending a non-traditional online English speaking high school,
referred to her plans to go to America one day as an influential factor. When asked what
influenced her decision the most, she replied:
Well, mainly because I want to live in America when I grow up and I know that the
school system here isn’t good at all, and I would rather do something that I enjoy
doing.
Significantly, both Lucia and Rosa seem to acknowledge that their choice of secondary
school will have a future effect on university plans. Lucia connected her future plans to one
day study architecture with her decision to attend liceo artistico. And Rosa connected her
future plans to one day live in America with her decision to attend an English-speaking
school. For both of them, the choice of secondary school was linked to their future
aspirations.
Practicalities
Other practical factors such as transportation and amount of homework were also
considered in the decision-making process. When asked what he thinks is influencing the
final school decision, Giacomo referred to his parents’ thought process:
They are thinking about, like, things like taking me to school, how long it will take to
get there, how much work they give us, how much work to do at home, and I think that
they’re basing it on that.
Rosa also referenced the amount of homework when creating her timeline. She claimed to
not like the system due to the minimum amount of 6 hours of homework. This apparently
influenced her decision as she drew an arrow from this statement leading to another statement
that indicates “I chose…”
Middle school teachers

It should also be noted that middle school teachers was not reported as one of the
influencing factors in school choice. This is significant since middle school teachers are
responsible for the administrative process of submitting the final decision. When it is time to
make the final request to attend a chosen secondary school, the middle school teacher submits
a form in class for the students to complete. The middle school teachers guide the students
through this process, thereby potentially influencing the children in their choice. Two of the
informants emphatically clarify that their middle school teachers were not influences. Lucia,
for example, included both parents and middle school teachers as non-influential factors:
I wasn’t influenced much by my [middle school] teachers or my parents.
During the interview with Pietro, a moment arose when I specifically investigated if his
middle school teachers influenced his decision at all. Pietro proceeded to clarify the decision-
making process by emphasizing that his middle school teachers had no influence.
No, like, because they [middle school teachers] give these sheets in which you can
decide which school to go to, say like classico, or say scientifico, professionale,
tecnicio, and during these 3 years [of middle school] if you study well in one of these
subjects, they give a recommendation to one of these schools. So say you keep
studying well in scientifico, they’ll recommend you to scientfico, but it’s not like they
make you go there. So say, they’ll say… you should study classic… but I decide, it’s
not like they decide for me. They just give you the basis [upon which to decide].
Interestingly, Pietro’s first timeline event (the teacher, during various lessons suggesting
secondary schools) indicates his recollection of middle school teachers suggesting possible
schools. Although, he does not identify them as a specific influence in the final decision, he
does remember and note their suggestions during lessons. It should be noted, that the above
dialogue pertaining to middle school teachers’ roles in the decision-making process took
place prior to the timeline activity. Therefore, the interview may have influenced his
construction of this event by recalling his memories of when school choice was first
introduced.
Furthermore, although Pietro emphasizes in the interview that his middle school teachers
did not influence his final decision, he does allude to the teachers’ recommendations for
specific types of school based on the students’ performance in specific subjects. Therefore,
although none of the informants identified middle school teachers as influential factors in
school choice, further investigation may reveal that their recommendations and feedback
throughout the three years of middle school may have influenced the final decision.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to explore the child’s voice in the decision-making process of
choosing a secondary school. Considering the impact that educational transitions potentially
have on children, an exploration of children’s voice on school choice helps in understanding
how they perceive agency and their part in school choice. For this reason, a qualitative study
with four children was conducted as a means to provide a platform for the children to share
their perspective and make their voice known. A thematic analysis of interview data
identified themes related to how children perceive they have a part in the decision-making
process.
The results indicate that the children perceive that they do have a part in school choice as
they prepare to transition from middle school to secondary school. The extent of this
involvement may be thematically identified as either a primary decision-maker or a
secondary decision-maker. Significantly, the children perceived their part in the decision-
making process as in cooperation to some degree with their parents. These findings can be
compared with Sargent and Gillet-Swan’s (2015) research that found that most children talk
with parents about school choice, yet parents are typically viewed as having the main
responsibility in the final choice (53). The interviews with the four children in this study find
that although the children may recognize the parents as the final decision-makers, they still
view themselves as either the primary or secondary decision-makers in the process of school
choice. Their involvement in the decision-making process, therefore, illustrates their
perception of voice and agency as active participants in school choice.
Although the children recognized their part in school choice, they also acknowledged that
they were potentially disregarded in the decision-making process. This was mostly reflected
by the children’s perceptions of who they believe is the intended audience of the school-
produced literature. This finding demonstrates the potential gulf between the child’s view of
their voice and the institutions’ perception of children’s part in school choice. In other words,
do children believe they have more of a part in school choice than the institutions? This may
explain why the schools do not target students as the primary decision-makers. Or perhaps
the institutions intend to target the children with the literature, however they are failing at
producing literature that effectively actualizes the children’s voice. This finding, therefore,
presents a practical implication for middle and secondary schools to proactively incorporate
the child’s voice into school choice.
Furthermore, in this study’s thematic analysis, specific factors that influence school choice
were identified. Parents, secondary school environment, future aspirations, and practicalities,
were all identified in this study as potentially influencing which secondary school will be
chosen. The extent in which these factors influence school choice further reflect the child’s
part in the decision-making process. Understanding these factors are helpful in knowing how
the children collaborate in this decision-making process while expressing their voice and
agency. For example, rather than producing school literature as a means to influence school
choice, perhaps schools should focus on other influential factors that will empower the
children in their decision-making process.
In seeking to provide an opportunity to give the children a voice, limitations to
understanding this voice should also be considered in the reflexive process of this study. In
my previous reference to Komulainen (2007) and Spyrou (2011), situating the child within
the relevant sociocultural and historical contexts helps in further understanding the child’s
voice. For this reason, I interpreted the child’s use of personal pronouns during the interview
process as a representation of agency. As the child situates himself/herself within the
decision-making process, a voice that reflects self-efficacy uses I and me to express
involvement and participation, hence agency. In other words, upon reflecting on the broader
sociocultural and historical implications of northeast Italy, the children’s voices may reflect
“certain ideological beliefs and values” (Spyrou 2011: 159) indicative of the child deciding
for their future.
In applying a sociocultural understanding, perhaps the children are mostly assigned as the
decision-makers, therefore the children are expressing their voice in response to this social
structure. A historical understanding, on the other hand, may expose the Italian education
system which has structured an educational transition that necessitates the decision-making
process at this stage in a child’s life. For this reason, the child’s voice should be situated
within the sociocultural and historical contexts that shape the child’s concept of agency.
Finally, in light of research that identifies the transition from middle school to secondary
school as a potentially stressful milestone in the academic career (Barber & Olsen 2004: 3),
the results of this study emphasize the importance to allow the children to have a part in the
decision-making process while also effectively supporting them with the means to express
their voice. As most programs focus on the school’s role in alleviating stress during this
transition (Ellerbrock & Kiefer 2013: 174), perhaps the greatest role of the schools is to
recognize the children’s voice and their part in school choice. Therefore, this study not only
responds to theoretical concepts that shape social science research with children, but it also
presents practical implications that impact educational transitions.
References
Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014, Child participation in research, European Union,
accessed 10 March 2017, < http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/rights-child/child-
participation-in-research#71>.
Ahtola, A., Gintautas, S., Poikonen, P.L., Kontoniemi, M., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J.E. (2011).
Transition to formal schooling: Do transition practices matter for academic
performance? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3): 295-302.
Associazione Italiana di Psicologia. (27 March 2015). Codice etico. Approvato nell-
assemblea generale dei Soci AIP.
Ballarino, G., Bernardi, F., Requena, M., & Schadee, H. (2009). Persistent inequalities?
Expansion of education and class inequality in Italy and Spain. European
Sociological Review, 25(1): 123-138.
Ballarino, G., & Schadee, H. (2010). Allocation and distribution. A discussion of the
educational transition model, with reference to the Italian case. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility, 28(1): 45-58.
Barber, B.K., & Olsen, J.A. (2004). Assessing the transitions to middle school and high
school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1): 3-30.
Barone, C. (2009). A new look at schooling inequalities in Italy and their trends over time.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(2): 92-109.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3: 77-101.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, 2nd Edition. Oxford: University Press.
Byrne, A 2013, 'What Factors Influence the Decisions of Parents of Children with Special
Educational Needs when Choosing a Secondary Educational Provision for their Child
at Change of Phase from Primary to Secondary Education? A Review of the
Literature', Journal Of Research In Special Educational Needs, 13, 2: 129-141.
Chiesa, R, Massei, F, & Guglielmi, D 2016, 'Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Change
in Italian High School Students', Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(2): 210-
224.
Cotnam-Kappel, M. (2014). Tensions in creating possibilities for youth voice in school
choice: An ethnographer’s reflexive story of research. Canadian Journal of Education
37(1): 140-162.
Danby, S. & Farrell, A. (2005). Opening the research question. In: Farrell, A. (ed.) Ethical
Research with Children. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill: 49-67.
Danby, S., Ewing, L. & Thorpe, K. (2011). The Novice Researcher: Interviewing Young
Children, Qualitative Inquiry 17(1): 74–84  
Duchesne, S., Ratelle, C.F., & Roy, A. (2011). Worries about middle school transition and
subsequent adjustment: The moderating role of classroom goal structure. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 32(5): 681-710.
Elffers, L., Oort, F.J. (2013). Great expectations: Students’ educational attitudes upon the
transition to post-secondary vocational education. Social Psychology Education: An
International Journaly, 16(1): 1-22
Ellerbrock, C.R., & Kiefer, S.M. (2013). The interplay between adolescent needs and
secondary school structures: fostering developmentally responsive middle and high
school environments across transition. The High School Journal, 96(3): 170-194.
Farrell, A. (2005). New times in ethical research with children. In: Farrell, A. (ed.) Ethical
Research with Children. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill: 166-175.
Ferrari, I., & Zanardi, A. (2014). Decentralisation and interregional redistribution in the
Italian education system. Education Economics, 22(5): 529-548.
Hutchby, I, & Moran-Ellis, J. 1998. Children And Social Competence: Arenas Of Action,
n.p.: London : Falmer, 1998
Israel, M. (2015). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: beyond regulatory
compliance, 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage.
Komulainen, S. (2007). The ambiguity of the child’s ‘voice’ in social research. Childhood,
14(1): 11-28.
Marrow, V. (2005). Ethical issues in collaborative research with children. In: Farrell, A. (ed.)
Ethical Research with Children. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill: 150-165.
Miriam, D., West, A., & Ribbens, J. (1994). Mother’s Intuition? Choosing Secondary
Schools. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
Montù, V. (2015). Research with children: un’analisi sistematica della letteratura.
Universitas Studiorum.
Panichella, N., & Triventi, M. (2014). Social inequalities in the choice of secondary school:
Long-term trends during educational expansion and reforms in Italy. European
Societies, 16(5): 666-693.
Pizzorno, M, Benozzo, A, Fina, A, Sabato, S, & Scopesi, M (2014). Parent–child career
construction: A narrative study from a gender perspective. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 84: 420-430.
Sargeant, J., & Gillett-Swan, J.K. (2015). Empowering the disempowered through voice-
inclusive practice: Children’s views on adult-centric educational provision. European
Educational Research Journal, 14(2): 177-191.
Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data: a guide to the principles of qualitative
research. Fifth edition. London: SAGE.  
Spyrou, S. (2011). The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive
representation. Childhood, 18(2): 151-165.
Whitsel, C 2014, 'Parental Choices in the Primary and Secondary School Market in
Dushanbe, Tajikistan', European Education, 46(2): 53-73.
Woodhouse, B.B. (2015). Listening to children. Participation rights of minors in Italy and the
United States. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 36(4): 358-369.
Appendix 1: Interview Guide
I. Interview Questions
1. Where will you be going to high school?
2. Tell me about how that school was chosen.
3. How do you feel about the decision?
4. Would you change the decision if you could? How?
5. Looking back, who or what would you say had the most influence in making the final
decision for which high school you will attend?
II. Review of printed material

Look at this material, who do you think the schools produced this for? Why? Tell me your
thoughts about this material? Does it help you decide whether this school is right for you?
III. Creation of time-line

Write down events on this time-line that you think led to the final decision of what school
you will attend next year. Try to think back to when you first thought about making the
decision to when the decision was finally made.
Appendix 2: Informed Consent (Parent)
Dear Parent or Guardian,

I am Brian Cambra, a student in the child studies masters programme at Linköping
University, Sweden. I request permission for your child to participate in the following
research study that I am conducting for my master thesis:
Children’s voices in school choice
The study is seeking to hear the child’s perspective in choosing which high school they will
attend next academic year. I hope the findings of my study will provide a better
understanding of how children perceive their involvement in the decision-making process.
I will ask your child to participate in an interview where he/she will have the opportunity to
talk about school choice. This interview will last about 30-40 minutes and will comprise of
the following parts:
1. Open-ended questions to ask about their perception in the decision. See the attached
form for a list of questions designed to guide this discussion.
2. Examples of school literature to learn how they feel about printed material. These will
be used to further hear their perception of school choice.
3. A time line where they will have the opportunity to construct events that led to the
school choice. Again, this activity will be used to hear their perspective.
To hear an accurate perspective from your child, I believe it is best to conduct the interview
alone with your child with you in the close proximity. However, you may sit in on the
interview if you prefer, and/or enter into the interview at any time. The interview will be
audio recorded to allow for a more accurate analysis and assessment of what your child said
after the interview has been conducted.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose to withdrawal your child
from participating in this study at any time.
The purpose of the study and the interview process will also be clearly explained to your
child and he/she will participate only if he/she is willing to do so. If you and your child
decide to participate, but change your mind either before or during the interview, you and
your child are free to end participation.
The study is completely anonymous. Names will not be used in any of the documents.
Furthermore, the only geographical reference to the participants will be Italy; no reference to
a local city or a school association will be included in the findings.
At the conclusion of this study, the final thesis that discusses the findings will be made
available. Please contact me if you wish to have a copy of this thesis.
If you have any questions about this research project, you may contact me at any time at:
brica903@student.liu.se
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact
Associazione Italiana di Psicologia at segreteria@asp.psicologia.it
Please indicate whether or not you wish to allow your child to participate in this project by
checking one of the statements below and signing your name.
I do grant permission for my child to participate in the Children’s voices in school

choice research.
I do not grant permission for my child to participate in the Children’s voices in school
choice research.
Printed Parent/Guardian Name Signature of Parent/Guardian

Appendix 3: Informed Consent (Child)

My name is Brian Cambra. I am a student at Linköping University in Sweden.
I am asking you to take part in a research study I am doing because I am trying to better
understand how you feel about the decision of what high school you will attend next year.
The purpose of my study is to hear what you have to say. The name of the study is:
Children’s voices in school choice research
If you agree to participate in this study, I will give you an opportunity to talk about how you
think the decision of which high school you will attend was made. I will also give you an
opportunity to share your opinion about some printed material that high schools have
produced. Finally, I will give you an opportunity to talk about some events that you think led
to the final school choice. Your participation will help me better understand what kids like
you experience in this decision. The whole interview will last between 30-40 minutes.
If you don’t want to be in this study, you do not have to participate. If you decide to say no,
no one will be upset or disappointed. If you say yes now, and decide later not to participate,
that is fine too. All you have to do is say so.
I would like to interview you on your own. But if you prefer to have your parent there with
you when you are interviewed, that is fine too. Just say so.
If during the interview there is anything you don’t want to answer, you are free to say so.
Also, if at any time you want to stop the interview, just say so.
If you have any questions about the study, feel free to ask.
Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to be in this study.
Thank for your help!
Signature of Informant
Appendix 4: School-printed Material
School-printed leaflet showing subjects offered.

School-printed leaflet showing technological equipment.

School-printed leaflet showing student life.

Brian Cambra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brian Cambra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHILDREN’S VOICES IN SCHOOL CHOICE IN ITALY:

MIDDLE SCHOOL TO SECONDARY SCHOOL

Brian Kristopher Cambra

Master Thesis in Child Studies, First Year

Key words: child’s voice, school choice, transition, Italy

FIGURE 1. EDUCATION SYSTEM IN ITALY 4

MOTIVATION AND RESEARCH AIMS 5

DATA COLLECTION METHODS 12

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE 37

APPENDIX 2: INFORMED CONSENT (PARENT) 38

APPENDIX 3: INFORMED CONSENT (CHILD) 40

APPENDIX 4: SCHOOL-PRINTED MATERIAL 41

APPENDIX 5: SCHOOL-PRINTED MATERIAL 42

APPENDIX 6: SCHOOL-PRINTED MATERIAL 43

Significance of educational transitions

Children’s voice and agency

Education system in Italy

Stage Italian Names English Names Approximate Compulsory?

Motivation and Research Aims

B. How is agency reflected in their perception of what influenced school choice?

C. How do children perceive the target audiences of school-produced literature that

Data Collection Methods

As this study seeks to construct meaning of children’s voices in school choice, a

1. Where will you be going to high school?

2. Tell me about how that school was chosen?

3. How do you feel about the decision?

4. Would you change the decision if you could? How?

In creating and conducting a semi-structured interview, the collaborative nature of the

Review of printed, school-produced literature

Theme 1: Being a part of the decision-making process

Subtheme 1: primary decision-maker

1. I wanted to do [name of high school]/went to the open day at [name of high

Figure 2. Rosa's timeline

1. Year 2 middle: First time I thought about secondary school

Figure 3. Lucia's timeline

Subtheme 2: secondary decision-maker

1. Talks with parents

2. Visiting state schools

Figure 4. Giacomo's timeline

Researcher: So who would you say made the final decision?

Importantly, when exploring children’s voices in this decision-making process, Pietro,

Theme 2: Disregarded by adults

Theme 3: Influences that affect school choice

I wasn’t influenced much by teachers or my parents.

Figure 5. Pietro's timeline

Secondary school environment

Middle school teachers

I wasn’t influenced much by my [middle school] teachers or my parents.

Children, Qualitative Inquiry 17(1): 74–84

research. Fifth edition. London: SAGE.

Appendix 1: Interview Guide

2. Tell me about how that school was chosen.

3. How do you feel about the decision?

4. Would you change the decision if you could? How?

II. Review of printed material

III. Creation of time-line

Appendix 2: Informed Consent (Parent)

Dear Parent or Guardian,

Children’s voices in school choice

I do grant permission for my child to participate in the Children’s voices in school

Printed Parent/Guardian Name Signature of Parent/Guardian

Appendix 3: Informed Consent (Child)

Children’s voices in school choice research

Children, Qualitative Inquiry 17(1): 74–84  

research. Fifth edition. London: SAGE.  