SUMMARY
The work presented here has been carried out in a Primary School (3 to 12 years old). It was our aim to value the role of support teachers before and after their training period. In a first moment, they responded to the "deficit model". After a training process dedicated to know the characteristics of the "curricular model", several changes in attitude and teaching practice were appreciated in those teachers.
INTRODUCTION
In the development of its education plans, a school has to face the question of personal, cultural and social diversity among its pupils; for this matter they have to be developed in a way inherent to the working dynamics of the school since this is a complex organisation and not only a group of teachers and their isolated decisions as to how and what to do.
Traditional practices in special education have been characterised by highlighting the possible causes of learning problems without taking into account additional factors that may be important to help children to learn.. For this reason, lots of labels have been created to classify children with different sorts of disability or that failed at school, establishing a special education subsystem within the mainstream whose structure and features have given rise to the so-called deficit model. As a consequence, a great deal of teachers have come to believe that low results mean low potential and a difficulty to learn instead of thinking about the learning-teaching process in the classroom (Ainscow, 1995). In fact, people believe that "special" pupils require "special" teaching delivered by "special" teachers, what makes "expert" teachers responsible for their education.
Despite the fact that the law (LOGSE, 1990) promotes a comprehensive education that should deal with diversity from an inclusive point of view, in Spain there is still a rather conservative approach based on the deficit model. As a consequence, the support teachers' role is still understood as an individual support for pupils with special education needs whose activity takes place mainly individually or in small groups outside the regular classroom.
Since this is a very limited approach, the training period focused on the curricular approach (Ainscow, 1995) because it participates of the school daily-life, understanding pupils' difficulties and establishing a support teacher's role with more functions. The Murcia Education Board (1998) established the Guide for the support teacher's work in special needs education within the organisation frame of the Elementary and Primary Schools, in which their functions and activities are clearly stated. Although they are not definite (they represent a guide created out of the different laws regarding this issue) and it is advised that they must be adapted to the different school contexts depending on the pupils, they clearly mention the support teacher's functions towards the school, the administrators, the pupils, the families and the services that come from outside the school.
So, the aim of our research was to develop a training process in which the teachers thought about their own teaching practice to make decisions along it about aspects that needed modifying in order to get a better response for all the students. Since one of our starting points was the way support teachers understood and carried out their functions we tried to analyse if the training process, that had been designed in the school and according to its needs in the matter of diversity, could change the actual model used by the support teachers and the speech language therapist (ST and HS). The steps followed were: ways to improve their co-ordination with other teachers, learning new methodologies, how to adapt the curriculum, lesson planning and design of materials. In short, we wanted to start a working dynamics that enabled teachers to move from the deficit model to the curricular one.
METHODOLOGY
The School
Our work was developed in a school with a long inclusive experience that started in 1990/91, accepting children with special education needs. They started with the low levels and as time passed by they integrated children in every level from elementary to primary education in 1995/96. With a low-middle sociocultural level, an important number of pupils presented family and economic problems. The school, with 239 students, is located in a industrial village 10km away from Murcia. There are 10 levels, consisting of: 2 kindergarten classrooms (children's ages varying from 4 to 6 years old), 6 primary classrooms (6 to 12 years old), 2 secondary classrooms (12 to 14 years old). There are 25 children per classroom (1 or 2 with special education needs). The staff is made up of: 2 kindergarten teachers, 4 primary teachers, an English teacher, a Maths teacher, an specialist in Therapeutic Pedagogy (support teacher) and a specialist in Hearing and Speech.
Data collection techniques
We chose the semi-structured interview as the way of collecting data; it took place after the training period in the school. We learnt about the support model that were already using the Support Teacher (ST) and the Speech Language Therapist (SLT) before the training period, what they contributed with and the changes in the way of providing support after getting to know other methods. Finally, we also wanted to know if they agreed to continue with the training process the following year and the objectives it would have. The interview dealt with the following questions:
1. What expectations did you have at the beginning of the training
experience in the school and how have they been met?
2. What has this
experience offered to the school regarding the care of children with special
education needs, from your point of view?
3. Do you think that this
experience can be taken to other classrooms in order to consolidate a new way
of working in the school?
4. Has this working dynamics had an influence on
the staff attitude?
5. As a support teacher, has the training helped you to
think about your practice? What things have you changed as a consequence?
6. Do you think it is worth continuing with the training process? What
would you change, include or keep?
Procedure
The training process took place in the school for one academic year in which the teachers met two hours one day a week as part of their normal time-table.
The working plan for the year was defined at a first stage although it suffered changes and modifications according to the needs and development of the group. The main training aspect was looking after children with special education needs and this gave rise to the following actions: curriculum modification, lesson planning and its implementation through different working methods such as co-operative learning techniques and the support teacher's role in these activities. The training process, based on an action-reflection methodology, followed six steps: working group consolidation, identification of the problems derived from diversity, solutions, design of an action plan, put it into practice and assessment of the working experience.
The two support teachers, the ST and the HS, were interviewed at the end of the training period by a member of the research team. Previously, they had been explained the reason and purpose of the interview and a place and a time was agreed. The interviews were carried out during the school regular time-table.
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Interviews were analysed with an inductive categorisation technique, an important tool for qualitative analysis (Miles y Huberman, 1984). The following categories were established:
- Expectations regarding the working group: Here we wanted to obtain information about the expectation ST and SLT had in the beginning about the working experience. We also wanted to know if their expectations had been fulfilled and/or there had been any change.
- Contributions to the project: Here we find opinions about aspects
of the project such as the chance to work in groups, participation in the
group, changes in attitudes and significance of the experience.
- Support modality: We tried to get information about how (inside or outside the classroom) and to whom (individually to the student or curricular to the teacher) support from ST and SLT's point of view. We also were interested in knowing if the training process had changed their minds in any way.
- Experience continuity: It was important to know if they saw a future for the training experience, their opinions about possible changes, new issues to deal with, and so on.
In order to analyse the information more easily, we produced codification maps structured according to the established categories and to what teachers thought at the beginning and the end of the experience. Find below the general codification map that represents the most important categories and sub-categories.
RESULTS AND COMMENTS
Following we will present the results obtained in the categories previously described. First, the codification map referred to the object we are studying and second comments about it.
SLT considered the experience to be positive from the beginning because it allowed him to work in group and discuss possible new solutions to improve their work in the classroom. He was very interested in finding new inclusive methods and strategies to look better after children with special education needs.
"I thought we would find new methodologies and strategies to work in the classroom".
The ST did not have great expectations at the beginning of the experience; however, he now thinks that it has given him the opportunity to work with his colleagues and to return to collaborative working practices, actions that had taken place in the school in the past.
"I didn't know what to expect in the beginning. I only thought it could be interesting working in groups more time".
Both support teachers have valued the experience positively. SLT
considers that his expectations have been fulfilled and that it has been
positive for the school for the new methodologies used (lesson plans and their
implementation through co-operative learning techniques) in three classrooms
(2nd year Elementary Education, 2nd year Primary Education, 6th year Primary
Education), techniques that had been designed by the group. He thinks that the
new working dynamics gives new opportunities to teachers and to the school.
"A lot of people wanted to introduce in the classroom new techniques that so far had only been used in other levels. From this point of view, I think that some expectations have already been met. It has been a first step and we want to continue in that way, including new methodologies"
"We have been given the opportunity to think about the plans used so far and about the school organisation"
ST regards the experience as positive when they started working with co-operative learning techniques since they were very useful to encourage participation and integration of children with special education needs.
"Once we started working co-operatively new possibilities appeared (...), mainly regarding the integration of students with special education needs whose participation can be easier and more dynamic in the normal flow of activities in the classroom and to avoid their being behind their classmates in these activities".
Both teachers considered the most positive aspect to be the application of the new techniques in three classrooms. However, they point out that this process is very recent and it needs time to settle because it is very difficult to change people's minds. On the other hand, this change, valued as positive by the group, may encourage other teachers to introduce them in their classrooms. It is a challenge for the school that has to be developed step by step.
SLT: "It has helped three colleagues to make changes in their classrooms and to get a positive idea about this action (...), other teachers will get their own conclusions and start their own changing processes".
ST: "We are taking the first step (...), It was difficult to absorb the curricular changes (...), now we see they are real, they can be achieved; we are now starting with lesson plans (...).
They stated the need to introduce a series of organisation changes in the school to promote meetings for teachers to carry out experiences of this sort and to work co-operatively.
ST: "The school board should bear in mind that these types of activities require a different way of organising the school. Co-ordination must be different, with concrete places and periods of time."
Another interesting element is the reflection derived from the organisation changes mentioned above. Although time and room are necessary to make meetings possible, there must be a change of mind and attitudes so that the whole situation is really effective.
SLT: "Some teachers did not get very much involved although it would have been desirable that everybody had been involved more deeply. If there is not much interest in introducing an experience in the classroom, the change towards integration cannot have been very important.".
SLT: "Those who have worked harder have given a bigger step towards integration than those who have not".
ST: "New things frighten some people; you can notice that even in children, they feel afraid, insecure".
The working team has helped these support teachers because they have been able to talk about children with special needs with their teachers, because their co-ordination has improved and because they have participated in the design of the three experiences carried out.
ST: "Now I know a new way of working in group (...), especially to talk and advice our colleagues about children with special education needs.".
SLT: "I have been influenced in my support job more than in the speech treatment".
When we started our work, both teachers used to provide their help outside the classroom. The ST would work with groups of 3 or 4 students from different levels whereas the SLT would do it individually with specific speech treatments and remedial lessons.
The support outside or inside the classroom was an important issue in the discussions of the working group. This topic came up when it was pointed out that children with special education needs were always out of the room in maths, language and social studies lessons because of a curricular difference reported by teachers. The support teachers entered in several classrooms as a consequence of the debate about this issue, the design of lesson plans and the incorporation of the curricular competence of children with special education needs to these plans.
At the end of the training period, both support teachers shared a similar view about the fact that not all kinds of support must take place in the classroom. However, after this consideration some types of support started to take place in the classrooms. They believed that some children require individual treatments because of their personal characteristics or the treatment they need (especially in speech), whereas remedial lessons can take place in the classroom. The support teachers were in favour of combining both types depending upon what was needed.
SLT: "I still carry out specific speech treatments individually (...), my reward has come when acting as a support teacher because I used to take the pupil out of the room and now we stay and help and get involved in some learning processes, mainly in Spanish.".
The organisation of time-tables was a problem that had to be faced after agreeing that part of the support had to take place in the classroom. Originally, they had been structured so that support was given in different classrooms to groups made up of students from different levels, making it difficult to carry out the activity as part of a normal lesson. So in a first stage, only some suffered changes but it was decided to change the whole system for the new year.
ST: "I have only been part of one activity (...), because my time-table did not let me time for other activities (...); I mean, whenever this type of activities take place, there should be a correspondence between time-tables. In this way the support and the activity are more rewarding".
ST: "We need new schedules and co-ordinations and this has to be borne in mind next year when programming the whole year (...); the important thing is to establish a time-table that takes into account lots of criteria necessary to be effective".
ST: "Sometimes you've got a meeting with two levels at the same time; it has happened that sometimes we have not reached an agreement or have not talked about things because of this".
Both teachers coincide that the best support modality is the one focused on the teacher and not on the student, as it also appears in their institutional documents. However, they recognise that that was not the way it really worked either because teachers did not ask to do it or because they had got used to this dynamics.
ST: "In the project we have presented to the school, the Integration Program Project, we pointed out the logistic support to the teacher; however, it is still difficult for a teacher to talk with you about things they do not understand about a child (...). Actually, teachers have not asked for help or communication, but that has been included in our action plan".
SLT: "It can also be a consequence of our work over a long period of time and that teachers know quite well. They also like that you take one child out of the lesson for one hour. It seems that that is all. The important thing is to take the child out of the classroom. The comments will take place afterwards if there is time".
SLT: "Teachers are not used to saying: This kid is not only a teacher's responsibility. It has to be shared with the support teacher, we both have to develop a project and to work collaboratively. It is a matter of practice and habit".
The other unsettled issue is the co-ordination between teachers and support teachers. We have already talked about the existing lack of room and time for meetings. However, teachers also report the lack of a common project among them; there is not a need for change, for a new time-table, etc. They recognise that co-ordination in the first levels is easier but later things get more and more complicated.
They also mention that co-ordination is easier with other teachers when they are involved in the working group than when they are not.
SLT: "First of all, we need a project to work collaboratively. If you have to work with a child (...) and the teacher and the support teacher work in different directions there is no common program for that pupil. In that case, co-ordination is not necessary because it becomes useless"
SLT: "Each teacher does what they want in their classroom and their time, we are not going to judge the quality, but it sure has nothing to do with what the support teacher is doing at the same time".
ST: "Are you asking about co-ordination? Like the saying, it is like the earth and the moon. They go round and round but they never meet (...); it would be interesting that both worlds got in contact. At present you can consider possible co-ordination and involvement in the low levels (...). It is different in other levels because there are different people who have not undergone a changing process".
ST: "In the past, co-ordination meant asking for cards but they do not ask for them any more because they have already received them all".
Both teachers agree on continuing with the experience. Its main aim should be to consolidate and go deeper into the work already done to spread it to other classrooms until it is introduced in every single classroom although that would take much longer because some teachers do not belong to the working group. That is to say, the process has started but it has to be developed step by step because everybody is not in the same stage; therefore the change needs time to consolidate and to become a real practice.
SLT: "The first thing would be to continue introducing new technologies as we have done this year, to consolidate what we have learnt (...), that teachers that have not got involved use them".
ST: "I would follow the same process (...), we were and still are new to this (...); there are some basic questions we have to learn (...), once the curricular changes are finished we must program the lesson plans (...), and adapt them to the curricular modifications of the children with special education needs"
They are also very much interested in finding new methodologies to encourage the integration of all the pupils in the school and they realise that the only way is working collaboratively.
SLT: "We can say now that there is a common working base; from there I think we will improve (...); it would be interesting to know other inclusive methodologies or intervention techniques (...), to adopt new experiences that are working in other schools (...), task or workshop learning"
ST: "Teachers cannot work alone any more. They must collaborate with each other (...) and organise systems to look after the children in the classroom".
Finally, we talked about the School Board for the following year. They are not sure if the new team will support/direct this experience or if they will let it decline, going back to the previous working dynamics.
ST: "One day there will be a new School Board that may share our ideas or not".
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions of the research are:
- The first expectations have been met according to the SLT because now there is a collaborative relation among the teachers that make up the training group (90% of the school teachers) and he has learnt new working methods. Although the ST did not have great expectations in the beginning, his attitude has changed along the process. What he values the most is that teachers have started to work in groups again and that collective training actions take place in the school with common objectives born from the need to improve attention towards the diversity among its pupils.
- Not only both support teachers but all the teachers in general have shown positive changes as a result of the training process. The innovative experiences were developed in three classrooms. The teachers got involved in their design, helped to adapt the materials and provided the necessary support. As a consequence, co-ordination among teachers improved, new methodologies were introduced in the classroom as part of the working activities and new expectations were created about the working dynamics in the school.
- The support provided outside the classroom in the beginning changed along the training process. The teachers found out that if the classroom was structured following lesson plans (tutored teaching, flexible grouping, co-operative learning) and the necessary materials adapted, they could look after all the children without sending anyone out.
- ST y SLT think that it is important to continue with the training process. Important changes had started and it was necessary to consolidate and work harder on them. They wanted to take the experiences to other classrooms so that more teachers could try and benefit from these working practices. An effective leadership from the new school board and a continuity of collaborative working were issues not to forget if the curricular model was to be achieved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainscow, M. (1995). Necesidades educativas especiales en el aula. Madrid: Narcea-UNESCO.
Arnaiz Sánchez, P. (2000). Educar en y para la diversidad. En Nuevas tecnologías, viejas esperanzas. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Nuevas Tecnologías y necesidades educativas especiales (pp.29-37). Murcia: Consejería de Educación y Universidades. Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia.
Miles, M. y Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Berbely Hill: Sage Publications.
UNESCO (1995). Conjunto de materiales para la formación de profesores. Las necesidades especiales en el aula. París: ONU.
 |
 |