Contributions from: Eileen Sparks
Abstract
Effective support is a key feature in promoting inclusive practice. The support provided for pupils often depends on collaboration between teachers and support staff.
Within this workshop, the presenters describe the development and delivery of in-service training courses for teachers relating to classroom support. The courses have been developed in conjunction with several LEAs and have emerged in response to requests from teachers, support assistants, student teachers and LEA personnel regarding the role of support within classrooms.
The presenters identify some of the strategies which have proved successful for teachers in primary or secondary schools and discuss concerns which have arisen during the delivery of the courses. They invite participants to consider the role that different staff members play in promoting collaborative relationships within classrooms.
Introduction
This paper explores how teachers and learning support assistants can be encouraged to work together within the classroom. It examines both the concept of support, its impact on relationships and the part that in-service training can play in promoting inclusive practice within schools. Support is a resource which involves not only the organisation of materials and the planning of appropriate provision for pupils with SEN, but the deployment and involvement of others. It can be viewed as multifaceted, made up of many overt and hidden levels, its effect dependent on the attitudes and skills of other 'stakeholders ' e.g. peers, teachers, support assistants, other professionals, the school, the Local Education Authority (LEA) and the wider community.
Support can be represented as a circular model, in which the pupil's needs are located in the centre, while surrounded by a number of extending circles each demonstrating a different layer of support. If this analogy of a 'circle of support' is used , educationalists can begin to perceive the wider implications associated with extra resource provision. One might, for example, consider the ripple effect that occurs as soon as support is 'dropped' into place. What would be the impact that the ever increasing and decreasing circles might have in terms of promoting inclusive practice? Such a model allows us to begin to examine the resources already available in a particular situation e.g. expertise within a school, teacher skills, peer support within classes. This then raises the question: where, how and at what level should support be targeted? Each situation should be viewed as unique, dependent on specific contextual factors such the ethos of the school, levels and sources of funding, the nature and degree of support needed, organisation of sessions, the views of staff concerning learning and teaching etc.
The objectives of this paper are
Background
The presenters are both lecturers in SEN working within initial and in-service teacher training, with additional experience of running accredited courses for support assistants. During 1999 we undertook several projects with teachers to encourage a more collaborative approach towards utilising support within schools. In addition to single in-service sessions, the tutors worked with several LEAs in the development of a regional training course to encourage teachers to work more effectively with support staff. So far the course has been delivered in 2 local authorities. A further four programmes are planned for the next academic year following the success of the present course.
It could be argued that such a courses attracts only those teachers who are already committed to examining and adapting their skills and therefore it has limited value in enabling teachers to become agents of change in their own schools. The fundamental challenge to in-service providers is to change the culture and practice within a school and this has yet to be measured.
Rationale
Extra support is a relatively recent phenomenon in schools - spurred on in the UK by the Government's inclusion policy, which requires LEAs and schools to provide extra classroom support for pupils with SEN within a mainstream setting. Government policy (Great Britain 1997) indicates that many more 'paraprofessionals' will be introduced into classrooms in an attempt to raise standards. As Marr (2000) notes reference in recent official documents to 'adult/ pupil ratios' allows the Government to reach their stated targets relating to class size without the employment of extra teachers. The increase in classroom support brings with it certain dilemmas for the teaching profession The exploitation of poorly paid and, in some cases, unskilled staff working with the most vulnerable pupils, raise a number of concerns which should not be forgotten in our zeal to promote inclusion for all pupils. What becomes evident is that new routes into teaching and the possible demise of the 4 year B.Ed. route and a more practical 'on the job' training, reduces the opportunity for trainee teachers to experience different support practices. The importance of in-service development in examining and challenging practices and beliefs concerning inclusive practice therefore becomes pivotal within an effective support circle. Future training courses must utilise the body of knowledge built up through research and practice and making this accessible to teachers, so that through debate, reflection and practical application we can develop a model of support which draws upon the skills of those within the circle.
The role and responsibilities of the support assistant has changed considerably within the past ten years as documented by Clayton (1993) and Balshaw (1998 b). However the roles and responsibilities of support staff are not always clearly delineated (Moyles and Suschitsky 1997) and the distinction between the role of the support assistant and the teacher is, in many practical situations, blurred (Farrell et al 1999). Whilst many teachers welcome adult support, there are some who may feel threatened by the presence of additional personnel in classrooms (as noted in research by Mortimore et al 1994, Fox and Halliwell 2000). It does not follow that all pupils or teachers will benefit from the provision of additional adult support (Farrell et al 1999).
Researchers such as Fox (1993) and Balshaw (1998) have observed that support in class is likely to have more impact on pupil learning where the adult is trained in basic skills. A growing number of support assistants in schools hold external qualifications relating to teaching and support as noted by Mortimore et al (1994), Lee and Mawson (1998), Farrell (1999). Many schools now offer their own in-service for support staff using resources developed specifically for use with support staff in a range of contexts - for example resources by Challen and Majors (1993), Lorenz (1997), Fox (1993) and Balshaw (1998). In addition, many LEAs and HE institutions offer accredited courses in learning support (Farrell et al 1999). However, training for support assistants alone cannot ensure that the skills learnt will be fully deployed within the classroom setting. In some cases teachers may be reluctant to utilise the skills of support staff. Other teachers may rely too heavily on the presence of a support assistant and in effect taking less responsibility for the learning needs of specific pupils (Ainscow 2000a). Lacey's research (1999) which looked at provision for pupils with severe learning difficulties in mainstream schools suggests that some teachers appear to renege on their responsibilities for some pupils, leaving the teaching totally in the hands of the support assistant. . It could be that some teachers resent the increased number of pupils requiring support - a concern noted by Black-Hawkins (1999) when observing inclusive practices in a secondary school. According to a questionnaire sent out by Dew-Hughes et al (1998) many support assistants expressed concern about supporting secondary aged pupils with behaviour difficulties. In many cases they felt they did not receive adequate support or direction from the class teacher. Research by Ainscow (2000) notes that support personnel are often used inappropriately with little benefit for the child or group of pupils. He suggests that, quite often, time is wasted through lack of coordination or understanding of the function and responsibilities of all staff involved. Role confusion has been noted by Thomas (1992, 1998) whose research demonstrates that support can be more effectively used when all staff were clear about their roles. Stacey (1999) suggests that the skills of support staff should be seen as qualitatively different to those of the teacher. Often support assistants may mirror the style and responses of the teacher, which may not serve the best educational needs of the child - particularly where the teaching style does not match the learning style of the child. Hughes and Westgate (1994) observing practice within the early years setting, noted that 'auxilliaries' often adopted a more 'teacherly style' of interaction than nursery nurses, which may be an inappropriate model for promoting pupil's skills particularly in the area of language development.
The promotion of good working relationships with pupils is vital in any support role. Likewise, it seems important to consider the skills which adults need to collaborate effectively with each other. Research within early years settings (Smith and Langston 1999), and areas outside education e.g. Douglas et al (1985) suggests that professionals need training and support to develop interpersonal skills in order to value each other's contributions. Lacey and Lomas (1993) and Lacey (1999) have also noted the importance of training for teachers in this area in relation to support staff and it may, suggests Lacey (1996), take considerable time to develop a collaborative team. Recent research reports suggest there is a need to offer more in-service training for teachers, so that they might utilise support more effectively (Farrell et al 1999) and develop skills associated with the role of 'managers of learning' (Marr 2000). There have been few opportunities available for teachers in this area. A number of researchers (e.g. Hopkins et al 1994), have focussed their attention on the importance of the school culture in improving classroom practice where teachers reflect on their practices. Advocates of the 'whole school approach' e.g. Goddard and Tester (1996), Clough (1998) consider that the involvement of all members of the school staff in promoting an inclusive approach is seen as paramount. This view echoes the beliefs expressed by Hopkins et al (1996) who felt that change could only be successful if it had an impact on all levels of the school organisation. This suggests the need for joint training between support staff and teachers, which presents a challenge for in-service providers.
The Development of Programmes for Teachers
Our own experiences on working with support staff through qualification routes such as the Support Teacher Assistant (STA) awards, Higher National Diploma routes, City and Guilds 7321 and Open College network courses raised a number of issues relating to the different perceptions of support. Whilst may support assistants felt empowered and able to put into practice their new-found knowledge, others felt undervalued, isolated or unable to change current practice and procedures within their own school contexts. Comments expressed by teachers attending short and long courses alerted us to different perspectives on the value and effective use of support. Anecdotal evidence revealed a number of common issues relating to inconsistency in school policy, problems in the recruitment of suitable candidates for support posts, ineffective or intransigent support assistants, lack of clarity relating to roles. Often teachers saw the organisation and management solely as the SEN Coordinator's responsibility. The perennial problem, particularly in primary schools, was the lack of time needed to organise training or discuss specific pupils. A questionnaire given to Year 3 student teachers on our Primary BA (QTS) route revealed particular concerns about working effectively with other adults in the classroom.
Evidence gleaned informally through various -service courses led to the promotion of short in-service programmes (varying between 1 hour and 2 days) delivered on site often to mixed audiences of support and teaching staff. One of these programmes involved a two-day programme in a large comprehensive school. The audience included all support assistants, the SENCO, teachers working in the special needs department and representatives from other departments. Activities centred on the discussion of values and attitudes towards inclusion and good practice that existed in school. Whilst there were well-established relationships, and some examples of forward planning, issues were raised about valuing the opinions of support staff, and the lack of clarity regarding role boundaries. The staff were encouraged to identify ways in which their good practice could be used to overcome the problems. One of the interesting outcomes mentioned by staff was lack of awareness of different practices within the school. Many staff commented on the value of discussion in promoting their own understanding of the problems. One very significant statement echoed by many participants was the belief that support should not be centred just on the child - staff also had significant and identified needs.
This work led to the development of a number of similar school initiatives. However, it became clear that short in-service sessions did not allow for follow up work. The opportunities for reflection and reflexivity were limited. It appeared that schools seldom created a forum for either teachers or support assistants to follow up ideas discuss joint concerns or implement whole school changes.
The two presenters became acutely aware of the need to explore a different pattern of in-service support that could be cost effective for schools. After discussion with several LEA advisory staff, a regional course was developed which took account of the concerns identified by teachers, support staff, LEAs and researchers.
The course entitled Effective Support - Effective Learning set out to enable teachers to:
The course was designed for teachers working in a variety of settings including early years, primary, special and secondary subject specialist teachers. It could be delivered over a period of eight weeks and required teachers to attend two half days and six twilight sessions. A support assistant from each of the schools involved was expected to attend the two half day sessions. The course covered aspects such as attitudes towards support, different perceptions of the role of the SA, job descriptions, practical ideas in organising and using extra help in classes, changing current practice, communication skills, time management, dealing with difficult situations and planning in-service training for staff. Delivery has been through interactive discussion and sharing of ideas along with set reading and follow-up tasks in school. Teachers have been encouraged to carry out small-scale research projects that can be accredited towards further awards at level 3 and 4.
Findings
The module was launched in the autumn term 1999 after considerable joint planning and discussion with SEN advisers and inspectors across the region. It was advertised in four different LEAs but recruited only in the two LEAs who paid course fees and offered supply cover for thee two half days. The first course was delivered in a LEA 'Teachers' Centre'. At the time of delivery, there were major changes taking place in the LEA as a result of a recent OFSTED inspection.
Initially Effective Support - Effective Learning was co-taught, although the two tutors did not attend every session. Sixteen teachers enrolled and fourteen completed the course. Participants came from every sector although the predominance of teachers were from the primary sector. Attendance levels for teachers fluctuated between nine and sixteen students. On average there were thirteen students at a typical session. Reasons for absence normally involved school priorities and illness. Both Support Assistants and Teachers attended session 1 and 6. The LEA adviser appeared occasionally at the beginning or end of a session and was happy for the lecturers to take the lead. Participants were expected to complete small tasks between sessions but were not required to undertake any research unless they wished to submit for accreditation. Three participants indicated that they would like to submit work but no student followed this through, despite extra tutorials being offered in the following term. The reasons given for non-submission were pressures within schools.
During the delivery of the course there were problems associated with the venue (lack of space, change of rooms each week, limited access to refreshments, teaching materials such as flip charts/video players not always to hand). A few members of the group expressed some dissatisfaction about the interactive style of delivery ('I want you to tell me what to do'). In one or two cases there was resistance to change ('we don't have any problems in my school so I can't do any research') and to the pressure to complete practical tasks between sessions. These issues were discussed with the whole group and compromise agreed. Despite these setbacks, the evaluations revealed that most members of the group felt they had gained a great deal from the course and had developed a greater awareness of the need to support the assistant as well as the pupils. There were negative comments from two participants concerning repetition within sessions, workload created by the course, venue and facilities. Some staff commented that more training was needed for support assistants within the LEA. A number of participants felt that the pre-course information had not indicated the level of commitment required of course members.
Following the evaluations, amendments were made to the programme and format in preparation for the delivery of a 2nd course in a different LEA. The content of the course was not changed radically, although more time for the discussion of practical strategies was allowed. In addition to other strategies, the techniques of solution focussed (O'Connell 1998) were introduced to promote a positive approach to concerns raised.
The Local Authority Training Centre where the second course took place had established facilities for in-service delivery including well-furbished rooms and a choice of refreshments for participants. The programme was adjusted so that session 1 became a twilight session attended only by teachers. Within this session the purpose and expectations of the tutor and demands placed on participants was fully explored. The students were informed that they would be expected to read between each session and to carry out a small-scale piece of research associated with the course within their own school. It was agreed with the LEA that all participants would be expected to hand in a report on their research at the end of the period of study irrespective of whether they sought credit for their work. As a result of the changes in format and adjustments to content, time was put aside at each session to discuss the use of different research techniques.
Eighteen teachers enrolled on the course, one person dropped out after the first week, when the demands placed on participants became clear and seventeen completed the course. Attendance at sessions remained high - over eighty five per cent at each session - with apologies from any absentees. Again absence was due to work commitments or illness. Each session was attended by a LEA adviser/inspector who participated in group work. One session was observed by an adviser from a neighbouring LEA (LEA 3). All participants completed research.
The end of course evaluations were very positive and revealed that the course was highly rated by the participants. Comments indicated that the course had successfully raised the awareness of the participants to support and had encouraged teachers to reflect on the their roles and responsibilities relating to support staff. Follow up evaluations about the effect of the course on classroom practice is due to take place next term.
The practical tasks had required teachers to seek the views of other staff members and use some basic research techniques. The research reports handed in by the cohort 2 members indicate the range of changes that individual teachers had implemented made regarding the use of support in classrooms. The projects that teachers completed have been particularly exciting. Several have sought to find out the views of staff towards support, others have analysed the roles of the support assistant from different perceptions, one person observed the work that support assistants did in classrooms and one analysed the support assistants views of the school induction and further development programmes. One secondary teacher persuaded the Humanities Department to review aspects of practice and another worked with the SENCO to review support within the school. In all cases the teachers reported that they felt surprised, motivated and empowered by their results. Several have indicated that they would like to continue their research.
Several teachers commented on the value of longer in-service courses, which they suggested encouraged healthy yet critical debate amongst colleagues in different situations and allowed theories to be applied in the practical situation. Participants indicated the value of learning from others and of sharing ideas with practitioners working in different age phases. Several have requested a follow up course in the same area.
What have we learnt?
There are several issues that arose as a result of delivering the course in different areas.
1. About teachers
i. Teachers valued the interactions, which emanated from sharing information with others on a regular basis.
ii. Teachers felt empowered through reading, debating or applying theories to their own experience. The opportunity to discuss research findings with others enabled individual teachers to explore solutions relevant to their own situation.
iii Some teachers feel unable to voice concerns regarding school policy within their own schools. They perceived themselves to be powerless in bringing about change outside their own classroom environments.
iv. A few teachers appeared less willing to analyse or reflect on specific situations - wanting instead 'quick fixes'. Reasons for this were often voiced as lack of time, pressure of work, individual perceptions about the purpose of in-service courses. The trainers felt that sometimes that an element of insecurity or low self esteem contributed to this apparent intransigence.
v. Teachers need both practical solutions, the time to reflect on theories and the opportunity to apply ideas to the classroom.
iv. The use of the solution-focussed approach (O'Connell 1998) enabled teachers to become more proactive in developing solutions - not merely concentrate on the negative side of identifying problems.
2 About LEAs
i Within the four LEAs there were differences in the amount of financial and professional support that was offered. It seems apparent that different LEAs can value teachers in different ways e.g. Contributing to fees, provision of refreshments, facilities available for inset delivery. Within the two cohorts, there was a difference in the level of LEA expectation e.g. LEA2 expected teachers to do work associated with the course and this was outlined in a pre-course letter, whereas LEA 1 left tutors to negotiate this with the participants. It should be noted that staff in LEA 1 were under particular pressure at that time due to a recent OFSTED inspection.
3 About in-service delivery
i Team delivery is a powerful way to deliver in-service. It can enhance professional skills, demonstrate models of collaboration and enable teachers to experience different styles of delivery. This is particularly apparent when LEA and HE staff work together.
ii Lessons were learnt from delivering the first course, which enabled the second delivery to be streamlined. As a result of feedback about the style and pace of delivery, changes were made to the order of sessions, with clearer explanations given about the teaching strategies adopted. More time was spent on explaining and discussing different research techniques. It seems particularly important to accept that in-service training is a learning process for everyone involved including tutors and LEA personnel.
iii. Effective change takes time. Teachers involved in the change process need a forum for discussion and support. This can be built into long term courses. Ideally it should be part of accepted practice within schools.
Practical issues for schools
i. Several issues emerged from the sessions. In particular, these related to the importance of identifying and discussing roles, clarifying job descriptions and ensuring all staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
ii. There was a general consensus both teachers and support assistants that the ability to listen was very important. It was also felt that teachers and support assistants needed to develop confidence in articulating concerns and reporting on good practice.
iii. Often teachers make assumptions about situations, issue instructions or use jargon assuming a shared understanding between themselves and others. Instructions may be misleading or confusing to the child or the support assistant. Teachers need to be able to read the nonverbal behaviour of support assistants as well as the pupils.
iv. The importance of investing time in developing structures, skills and relationships is paramount. Opportunities for planning and reviewing learning need to be set aside if support is to be effective. Schools need to consider the cost implications and the long-term benefits of building in time for discussion with support staff.
v. It is important to recognise the concerns that student teachers and newly qualified staff may have when working alongside support assistants. If the main teacher training route is to become the one year PGCE, newly qualified staff are likely to have had less opportunity to consider, let alone develop the skills needed to work effectively with others before they commence their responsibilities as a class teacher.
Conclusion
This paper has been presented to encourage in-service providers and teachers to consider the support networks which need to be in place if adults and pupils are to work successfully within a supportive environment. A circular model of support which focuses initially on the school whilst identifying the wider network of support should promote a more proactive use of available resources. Whilst the number of in-service courses to enable support assistants to gain formal recognition for their work has increased, less opportunity has been given to the professional development of teachers within this area. This paper has highlighted some of the issues that have arisen during the development of a regional initiative. Unless teachers are able to utilise the skills of other adults, support may be an expensive yet ineffective resource. If inclusion means valuing and accepting others, educationalists, trainers and policy makers need to consider their own role in extending the circle of support for all.
Patricia Marston
Eileen Sparks
July 2000
Bradford College, Department of Teacher Education Trinity Road, Bradford, BD5 OJD, U.K
email: pmarston@bilk.ac.uk
Bibliography
Ainscow (2000a) Poor tactics let down mums' army Times Educational Supplement 31.3.2000 p. 24
Ainscow M, Hopkins D, Southworth G, West M (1994) Creating Conditions for School Improvement. London: David Fulton.
Balshaw M (1998) Help in the Classroom. London: David Fulton. 2nd ed.
Black-Hawkins K (1999) Close Encounters of the Cultural Kind: The Significance of Culture in Understanding Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion in Schools. Paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference. Brighton University September 2-5th 1999
Challen M, Majors K (1997) Learning to Support: A Training Course for Special Needs Support Assistants. Bristol: Lucky Duck Publishing.
Clayton T (1993) From domestic helper to 'assistant teacher' - the changing role of the British classroom assistant. European Journal of Special Needs Education Vol. 8:1 pp32-44
Dew-Hughes D, Brayton H, Blandford S (1998) A survey of training and professional development for learning support assistants. Support for Learning Vol. 13:4 pp179 - 183
Douglas R, Etteridge D, Fearnhead D, Payne C, Pugh D, Sowter D (1985) Helping People Work Together: A Guide to Participative Working Practices. Paper 21 London: National Institute for Social Work
Farrell P, Balshaw M, Polat F (1999) The Management, Role and Training of Learning Support Assistants. Research Report 161.London: DfEE.
Fox G (1993) A Handbook for Special Needs Assistants: Working in Partnership with Teachers. . London: David Fulton.
Goddard C, Tester G (1996) Managing the Code of Practice: A Whole School Approach. London: David Fulton.
Great Britain (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. (The Green Paper) London
Hopkins D, Ainscow M, West M (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell.
Hopkins D, West M Ainscow M, (1996) Improving the Quality of Education for All. Progress and Challenge. London: David Fulton
Hughes M, Westgate D (1997) Teachers and other adults as talk partners in Nursery and reception Classes Education 3-13 March 1997
Hughes M, Westgate D (1997) Assistants as talk -partners in early years classrooms: some issues of support and development. Educational Review Vol. 49:1 pp. 5-12
Lacey P (1999) On a Wing and a Prayer. London: MENCAP
Lacey P, Lomas J (1993) Support Services and the Curriculum: A Practical Guide to Collaboration. London: David Fulton
Lacey P (1996) Training for Collaboration. British Journal of In-service Education 22 no1 pp. 67 - 79
Lorenz S (1997) Supporting Support Assistants. Bury Professional Development Centre.
Lorenz S (1998) Effective In-class Support. London: David Fulton
Marr A (2000) A Very Visible Means of Support. Times Educational Supplement 28.4 00 pg. 22
Mortimore P, Mortimore J, Thomas H (1994) Managing Associate Staff: Innovation in Primary and Secondary Schools. Paul Chapman.
Moyles J Sushitsky W (1997) Jill of All Trades? Classroom Assistants at KS 1 Classes London: ATL
O'Connell B (1998) Solution Focussed Therapy. London. Sage.
Smith A, Langston A (1999) Managing Staff in Early Years Settings. London: Routledge.
Thomas G (1992) Effective Teamwork: Support or Intrusion. Routledge.
Wright J A, Kersner M (1998) Supporting Children with Communication Problems: Sharing the Workload. London: David Fulton
 |
 |