Teaching assistants
TAs on pupils’ academic performance. However, the statistical analysis in the DISS project is far larger, sophisticated and robust than that used in the TDA study, and the TDA research is so limited and flawed in its design and statistical analysis that no firm conclusions can be drawn1
. Explaining the DISS project findings: The Wider
Pedagogical Role model So, how do we account for the negative results on pupils’ progress found in the DISS study? One obvious explanation might be that pupils given most TA support would, in any event, have been likely to make less progress. However, such explanations are unlikely, because pre-existing pupil characteristics that typically affect progress and the reason for TA support (e.g. prior attainment and SEN status) were controlled for in the statistical analysis. This is explained more fully in Blatchford et al (2009). If pupil factors cannot explain the negative relationship between
TA support and academic progress, what could? We argue that the relationship is attributable to decisions made – often with the best of intentions – about how TAs are deployed and prepared, and over which they have little or no control. The Wider Pedagogical Role (WPR) model was developed to summarise
and interpret other results from the DISS study concerning the broader context within which TAs work, and the factors likely to maximise or inhibit their effectiveness (see Webster et al, 2011 for full details). There are three key components of the WPR model: preparedness, deployment and practice. Preparedness concerns the lack of training and professional
development of TAs and teachers, and the limited opportunities for day- to-day planning and feedback between teachers and TAs before and after lessons. For example, our survey of over 4,000 teachers found that 75 per cent reported having had no training to help them work with TAs; and 75 per cent reported having no allocated planning or feedback time with TAs. On the basis of findings from over 1,600 workload diaries and over
220 hours of careful moment-by-moment observations in 67 schools, it is clear that TAs are deployed in a direct teaching role, supporting and interacting with pupils, usually in one-to-one and group contexts, and predominantly with pupils with SEN. The more severe a pupil’s needs, the more interaction with a TA increased, and interaction with a teacher, decreased. The interactions pupils have with TAs are more sustained and interactive than those they have with teachers. This
“Heads and teachers tell us their schools would struggle to function
without TAs, but they find it tricky to demonstrate where TA support has improved pupil outcomes”
might seem pedagogically valuable, but it leads to TA-supported pupils becoming separated from the teacher, missing out on everyday teacher- to-pupil interactions and mainstream curriculum coverage (especially if TAs are given responsibility for leading interventions away from the classroom). On the basis of our detailed analyses of audio recordings of teacher-
pupil and TA-pupil dialogue, we concluded that pupils’ interactions with TAs are much lower in quality than those with teachers. We found that TAs are more concerned with task completion than learning; and inadequate preparation leads to TAs’ interactions being reactive. In addition, we found that teachers generally “open up” pupil talk, whereas TAs “close down” talk, both linguistically and cognitively.
Ways forward The largest study to date of the deployment and impact of TAs has therefore shown they have a predominantly remedial role, supporting lower-attaining pupils and those with SEN. Teachers like this arrangement, because they can then teach the rest of the class in the knowledge that the children in most need get more individual attention. But the more support pupils get from TAs, the less they get from
20
teachers. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that these pupils make less progress. The TDA report argued that the benefits of TAs are felt by the rest of
the class. Last year’sHeadteacher Update article (The right balance, May 2010) echoed this, speculating that this was one way of reconciling the TDA findings with the DISS research. However, we must point out the DISS project did not find consistent evidence that TA support did benefit the rest of the class – though this possibility requires more research. As US academic Michael Giangreco has argued, we would not
accept a situation in which children without SEN are routinely taught by TAs instead of teachers. The present default position, where pupils get alternative – not additional – support from TAs, lets down the most disadvantaged children. Given the power of research evidence to inform decision-making, it is
vital that findings on TA impact are not cherry-picked in order to defend current forms of TA deployment that the DISS study has shown to be ineffective, or, for that matter, to justify disproportionate responses to the situation the project uncovered. For example, Reform (a right-of-centre think-tank) recently cited the project findings to argue for a significant reduction in TA numbers as part of efficiency savings. Heads and teachers tell us their schools would struggle to function
without TAs, but they find it tricky to demonstrate where TA support has improved pupil outcomes. We agree that TAs could make a huge contribution to schools, but our view is that progress can only be made if we first recognise that there is a problem with widespread models of deploying TAs, and then take steps to find alternative, more effective ways of utilising them. Through our current research and consultancy activities, we are
beginning to address the issues raised by the DISS research, working in collaboration with schools, using their existing resources, to develop and evaluate strategies for improving TA deployment and preparation. Our starting point for this new research (funded by the Esmée Fairbairn
Foundation) is that we need a fundamental rethink of the appropriate pedagogical role of TAs. For too long we have avoided confronting some key questions about TA deployment based on untested assumptions that they help to raise standards. Headteachers must ask: should TAs have a primary, frontline instructional role? If so, what should this consist of?
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40