No abstract

Teaching assistants (TAs) are part of a growing international trend toward paraprofessionals working in public services. There has been controversy over TAs' deployment and appropriate role when supporting the learning of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools. Such debates have been transformed by findings from a large study of school support staff in the UK (the DISS project). The findings from this study show that TA support has a negative impact on pupils' academic progress, especially pupils with SEN. The findings render the current system of support for SEN highly questionable: TAs have inadvertently become the primary educators of pupils with SEN. This paper sets out the likely explanations for the negative effects in terms of three 'frames' -deployment, practice and preparedness -and then uses these frames to identify specific implications for pupils with SEN. We offer suggestions on how to make the most productive use of TA support. IntroductionTeaching assistants 1 (TAs) are part of a growing international trend toward paraprofessionals working in different professional areas, often in public services (e.g., health and social care). There has been controversy over TAs' deployment and their appropriate role in supporting learning. But recent findings from the largest ever study of TAs (the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) project), presented in this paper, have called into question current ways in which TAs are deployed. Other findings from the DISS project presented in this paper show that the implications of TA support are greatest for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) included in mainstream schools.In this paper, we will use three 'frames' -deployment, practice and preparedness -to organise the presentation of findings from the DISS project and to explore the implications they have on the use of TAs to support pupils with SEN. We will see how the current system of support for pupils with SEN (in the UK at least) is highly questionable. We argue that the effects of this system, in terms of the impact on pupil outcomes, is best understood in the context of wider, interlinking factors, concerning the decisions made about, rather than by, TAs. *Corresponding author. Email: r.webster@ioe.ac.uk. 320 R. Webster et al.We first summarise the context in which the DISS project was carried out, and then describe the distinctive research design. We provide the impetus for the main body of the paper by presenting key findings on the impact of TA support on pupils' learning. We then move on to the findings on TA deployment, practice and preparedness, which help to explain the impact results and expose the current system of support for pupils with SEN as inappropriate. We will consider the implications for pupils with SEN and how we might reconceptualise the work of TAs in relation to the support they provide for these pupils. Background to the DISS projectThe rise in support staff In 2009, more than half of the school workforce in England and Wales were paraprofessio...

Teaching assistants (TAs) comprise a quarter of the school workforce in England and Wales. There has been controversy over TAs' deployment and appropriate role regarding supporting learning and these debates have been transformed by findings from the largest study of school support staff (the DISS project), which show that TA support has a negative impact on pupils' academic progress. This article conceptualises the most likely explanations for the negative effects of TA support in the form of the wider pedagogical role model, the components of which enable us to understand the effects of TA support in terms of the decisions made about TAs, rather than by them. IntroductionTeaching assistants 1 (TAs) are part of a growing international trend toward paraprofessionals working in different professional areas (e.g., health and law). There is ambiguity about the role of TAs in supporting learning, and recent findings from the largest study of TAs (the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff [DISS] project), presented in this article, question the current and widespread models of TA deployment. The rationale behind increasing the number of TAs in classrooms over the last decade seems fairly sound: TAs improve adult-to-pupil ratios. Yet findings from the DISS study presented here, show that TA deployment, together with other situational factors connected with their employment and preparation, can have a negative impact on the academic progress of pupils in mainstream schools.In this article, we use these situational factors to provide the basis for an organisational framework that structures and describes key facets of TAs' work. We put forward a 'wider pedagogical role' (WPR) model to enable us to interpret the results on TAs' impact on pupils' academic progress within the wider context of the factors within which TAs work, and which, we argue, maximise or inhibit their effectiveness. In the discussion at the end we will consider how the WPR model can be used to reconceptualise the work and role of TAs, and inform models of educational effectiveness.

No abstract

Despite an unprecedented increase in classroom-based support staff, there are confusing messages about their appropriate deployment and a lack of systematic evidence on their impact. This article addresses the deployment and impact on pupil engagement and individual attention of support staff, commonly known as teaching assistants (TAs), in terms of: (1) a comparison between TAs and teachers; (2) differences between pupils with and without special educational needs (SEN); and (3) differences between primary and secondary schools. Systematic observations of pupil behaviour in 49 primary and secondary schools showed that support staff presence resulted in increased individualisation of attention and overall teaching, easier classroom control, and that pupils showed more engagement and a more active role in interaction with adults. This supports teachers' positive view of support staff, but their presence also meant pupils' contact with teachers declined and at secondary level there was less individual and active interactions between teachers and pupils.