6
This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] On: 07 October 2014, At: 07:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK European Journal of Special Needs Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20 Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about? Michael F. Giangreco a a Department of Education and Center on Disability and Community Inclusion , University of Vermont , Burlington, USA Published online: 19 Nov 2010. To cite this article: Michael F. Giangreco (2010) Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25:4, 341-345, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.513537 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2010.513537 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]On: 07 October 2014, At: 07:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special NeedsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Utilization of teacher assistants ininclusive schools: is it the kind of helpthat helping is all about?Michael F. Giangreco aa Department of Education and Center on Disability andCommunity Inclusion , University of Vermont , Burlington, USAPublished online: 19 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Michael F. Giangreco (2010) Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusiveschools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?, European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 25:4, 341-345, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.513537

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2010.513537

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

European Journal of Special Needs EducationVol. 25, No. 4, November 2010, 341–345

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.513537http://www.informaworld.com

Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

Michael F. Giangreco*

Department of Education and Center on Disability and Community Inclusion, University of Vermont, Burlington, USATaylor and Francis LtdREJS_A_513537.sgm10.1080/08856257.2010.513537European Journal of Special Needs Education0885-6257 (print)/1469-591X (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis254000000November 2010Dr [email protected]

The final stanza of the children’s poem Helping reminds us of a simple caveat we allwould be well advised to consider: ‘Some kind of help is the kind of help that helping’sall about. And some kind of help is the kind of help we all can do without’ (Silverstein1974, 101). The deployment of increasing numbers of teacher assistants [TAs] tosupport students, especially those with disabilities or other special needs, presumablyhas been perpetuated with benevolent intentions meant to help both students and teach-ers. Given the contemporary emphasis on theoretically grounded and evidenced-basedapproaches in education, it is interesting and somewhat perplexing that teacher assis-tant utilization has advanced steadily and their roles have expanded instructionallydespite lacking both a theoretically defensible foundation and a substantive evidencebase. Literature reviews on teacher assistants in special education in the United States(called paraprofessionals in US federal law) have reported an overall paucity of dataand corresponding lack of evidence attesting to the efficacy of paraprofessionalsenhancing student outcomes (Giangreco et al. 2001; Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle2010; Jones and Bender 1993) and no literature to date has offered a compelling ratio-nale in support of assigning the least qualified school personnel, namely teacher assis-tants, to students with the most complex learning challenges.

Cautionary documentation surfaced in the research literature more than a decadeago, describing how well-intended paraprofessional supports may result in inadvertentdetrimental effects (e.g., unnecessary dependence, stigmatization, interference withteacher engagement, interference with peer interactions, limited access to competentinstruction), especially when teacher assistants are inappropriately assigned or allowedto undertake roles that are more appropriately the purview of professionally-preparedteachers and special educators (e.g., curricular adaptations, instructional decisions,primary instruction). A small set of more recent literature suggests parameters foreffective utilization of teacher assistants under specified conditions (Causton-Theoharis et al. 2007; Cremin, Thomas, and Vincett 2005) and alternatives to overre-liance on paraprofessionals (Carter et al. 2007; Giangreco, Broer, and Suter 2010). Datacollected by the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) project (Blatchfordet al. 2008, 2009a, 2009b) represents a substantial and unique contribution to theresearch literature on the utilization and impact of teacher assistants given its largescope, longitudinal nature, multiple data collection methods, and focus on the relation-ships between teacher assistant deployment and student achievement. In doing so

*Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

07:

21 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

342 M.F. Giangreco

it challenges the status quo and offers insights to guide school improvement. Thiscommentary, based on a subset of DISS project data presented in this issue (Websteret al. 2010), describes:

(a) findings that replicate existing data collected in US schools,(b) substantially new findings that extend the field’s research base, and(c) implications for policy and practice.

DISS project data replicating previous research

Comparing DISS project findings to the two most recent reviews of US research onspecial education paraprofessionals (49 studies 1991–2007) (Giangreco et al. 2001;Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle 2010) and more recent data (Carter et al. 2009; Giangreco,Broer, and Suter 2010) highlights similarities between the UK and US regardingteacher assistants such as:

(a) marked increases in utilization,(b) their use as a key mechanism to support inclusion of students with disabilities,(c) inadequacy of their preparation, training and supervision,(d) concerns about the quality of their instruction, and(e) perpetual concerns and ambiguity about the appropriateness of their increas-

ingly instructional roles.

Table 1 offers additional findings reported in US schools replicated in the DISSproject data.

New DISS project data

Most notably, DISS project data reported negative relationships between the provisionof support by teacher assistants and achievement in core academic subjects (i.e.,English, Math, Science) in 76% (16 of 21) of the comparisons across grade-levels andno differences in the remaining five comparisons (Webster et al. 2010, Table 2). Theyalso reported, ‘In general, the pupils with the highest level of TA support made lessprogress, and this trend was most marked for the pupils with the highest level of need’(324). The research team excluded pre-existing student characteristics as an alternateexplanation for their findings noting, ‘key pupil characteristics which typically affectprogress, such as SEN status, prior attainment or measures of deprivation, werecontrolled for in the statistical analyses, and so this explanation is very unlikely’ (325).

Equally compelling were the observational and qualitative analyses documentingdifferences between teacher-to-pupil and TA-to-pupil talk that may explain, in part,why teacher assistant supports did not result in hoped-for gains in student achievement.Whereas teacher interactions were more likely to open-up student talk, both linguisti-cally and conceptually, teacher assistant interactions were more likely to close it down.This was observed as teachers ‘spent more time explaining concepts, provided morefeedback, linked current lesson to pupils’ prior knowledge, and attempted to promotepupils’ thinking and cognitive engagement in a task’ (Webster et al. 2010, 327–328).To the contrary, teacher assistants’ interactions with students were more frequentlyreactive and focused on task completion ‘rather than ensuring that any learning andunderstanding had taken place’ (Webster et al. 2010, 328). Teacher assistants were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

07:

21 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

European Journal of Special Needs Education 343

more likely to offer inaccurate or confusing explanations, prompt students and supplyanswers. The DISS research team concluded that since students with disabilitiesreceive more support from teacher assistants, ‘it is likely that the more marked [nega-tive] effects on progress can be explained in terms of these lower quality interactions’(Webster et al. 2010, 330–331), thus reinforcing the need for students with disabilitiesto have more, not less, instructional access to highly qualified teachers.

Implications for policy and practice

Data calling into question the wisdom of current teacher assistant utilization approachesto support students with disabilities and other special needs, while clearly of greatconcern, should not be misconstrued as blaming teacher assistants for this predicament

Table 1. DISS project findings replicating data collected in US schools.

Research findings on special education paraprofessionals in US schools

Corresponding DISS project findings: Selected excerpts from Webster et al. (2010)

Paraprofessionals are asked to undertake roles for which they are under qualified or inadequately prepared.

‘Many [TAs] felt under-prepared for the tasks they were given. There was little or no time to liaise prior to the lesson and TAs described how, in most cases, they have to ‘tune in’ to the teacher’s delivery in order to pick up vital subject and pedagogical knowledge, and information and instructions’ (329)

Teachers often are less engaged with students who have special education needs than paraprofessionals.

‘Teachers provided less support to such pupils [those failing to make expected progress or with special educational needs] than did TAs.’ (327)

‘TA interaction with pupils increased – and teacher interaction decreased – as pupil level of SEN [special education needs] increased.’ (327)

Teachers are inadequately prepared to work with or supervise paraprofessionals.

‘75% of teachers had not had any such training [pre-service or inservice to work with TAs]’

‘The majority of respondents said it lasted only one day or less, and only half rated the training as useful.’ (328)

Planning time between teachers and paraprofessionals is inadequate.

‘75% of teachers reported having no allocated planning or feedback time with the TA; 95% of [secondary school] teachers claimed that they had no such time.’

‘Communication between teachers and TAs tended to be ad hoc, taking place during lesson changeovers, before and after school, and during break and lunch times.’ (329)

Paraprofessional supports may result in a host of inadvertent detrimental effects.

‘On the face of it this kind of [TA] support might seem pedagogically valuable, but we also found there were serious and unintended consequences.’

‘A main effect of the current and widespread model of TA deployment is that it leads to pupils with SEN becoming separated from the teacher and the curriculum. These pupils miss out on everyday teacher-to-pupil interactions. (They also miss out on peer-to-peer interactions).’ (330)

Paraprofessionals inappropriately have become the primary instructors of some students with disabilities.

‘TA’s role has evolved – quite unintentionally – in such a way that TAs have become the de facto primary educators of pupils with SEN. TAs are placed in situations each day in which they have to make pedagogical decisions beyond their expertise, and the effects of this are more damaging for the pupils who struggle most.’ (331)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

07:

21 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

344 M.F. Giangreco

or as a call to eliminate their involvement in public education. Anyone familiar withschools knows of caring, hardworking, under-appreciated teacher assistants who areconsidered assets in their schools, yet inappropriately are expected carry-on teacher-type duties without adequate training, planning, supervision or compensation. Rather,the responsibility for potential misuse and overuse of teacher assistants is more aptlyplaced at the doorstep of educational systems that have perpetuated questionablemodels of service delivery.

Identified teacher assistant problems might aptly be viewed as symptomatic ofsystemic dysfunction resulting from reactive and ill-conceived delivery and coordina-tion of general and special education to support students with special educational needsin inclusive schools. Too often, the primary, overly simplistic, and ultimately insuffi-cient response to problems such as those identified by the DISS project researchers isto provide more training for the teacher assistants. Although providing training forteacher assistants, along with planning by the teachers and supervision are desirable,such steps alone do not address systemic changes needed to rectify inherent inequitiespresent in schools where the more challenging the learning characteristics of thestudent, the more likely he or she is to receive instruction from teacher assistants ratherthan teachers. The onus for ensuring that all students receive competent instruction isthe responsibility of school leaders, teachers, and special educators.

Substantive school reform might be aided by a collective acknowledgement thatsome of our practices in the US (e.g., segregated education, differential access toinstruction from highly qualified teachers, over identification of minority students asdisabled) have hampered equitable opportunities for students with disabilities andother special needs. A commitment to confront these types of inequities will mean, inpart, articulating and operationalizing an ethic that establishes the inherent worthinessof all students, including those with disabilities or other special needs, to have fullaccess (with appropriate supports) to the same educational environments, opportuni-ties, and instruction from highly qualified teachers alongside their peers withoutspecial needs.

Additionally, it is vital to recognize that efforts to encourage the use of research-based approaches to curriculum and instruction will be hindered or facilitated by thecorresponding quality and congruence of service delivery models within which theyare offered. For too long efforts to advance inclusive education have attempted toretrofit existing service delivery models that were not initially intended to accommo-date the range of student diversity currently present in public schools. In essence, wehave maintained the status quo by responding reactively to system stressors, such asthe presence of students with increasingly complex disabilities in regular classrooms,by taking actions such as adding paraprofessionals rather than proactively developingthoughtfully designed service delivery models tailored to contemporary needs.

Building better service delivery models will require wrestling with difficult deci-sions about structural issues such as class size, teacher and special educator workingconditions, and support service provider ratios, in light of economic realities. In doingso it is essential to explore educationally viable alternatives to overreliance on para-professionals – merely reducing their numbers will likely leave a untenable void orpredictably trade one set of problems for new ones.

Foundational to such change will be reconceptualizing the roles of all teammembers. It has become apparent that the ongoing concern about clarifying the rolesof teacher assistants can only be appropriately addressed after first clarifying therespective roles of teachers and special educators and the interplay between them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

07:

21 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about?

European Journal of Special Needs Education 345

In order for students with disabilities to receive equitable opportunities, effectiveinstruction, and appropriate supports in inclusive schools, an expectation of teacherengagement is essential, as is their preparation and support for such direct instruc-tional roles. This necessitates collaboration with special educators and a rethinking oftheir roles, potentially involving a shift away from traditional pull-out approachesnarrowly focused on remediation, toward more collaboration, co-teaching, differenti-ation, and universal design in classrooms. The DISS project findings have illuminateda persistent challenge and provided compelling data to spur constructive actions –hopefully contributing to the kind that helping is all about!

ReferencesBlatchford, P., P. Bassett, P. Brown, M. Koutsoubou, C. Martin, A. Russell, and R. Webster,

with C. Rubie-Davies. 2009a. The impact of support staff in schools. Results from theDeployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) project. (Strand 2 Wave 2), London:Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Blatchford, P., P. Bassett, P. Brown, C. Martin, A. Russell, and R. Webster. 2009b. The deploy-ment and impact of support staff in schools: Characteristics, working conditions, job satis-faction and impact of workforce remodelling. Report on findings from the three nationalquestionnaire surveys of schools, support staff and teachers. (Strand 1 Waves 1–3 – 2004,2006 and 2008), London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Blatchford, P., P. Bassett, P. Brown, C. Martin, A. Russell, and R. Webster with S. Babayigit,and N. Heywood. 2008. The deployment and impact of support staff in schools and theimpact of the National Agreement. (Strand 2, Wave 1, 2005/06), London: Department forChildren, Schools and Families.

Carter, E.W., L. O’Rourke, L. Sisco, and D. Pelsue. 2009. Knowledge, responsibilities, andtraining needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial andSpecial Education 30: 344–59.

Carter, E.W., L.G. Sisco, M.A. Melekoglu, and C. Kurkowski. 2007. Peer supports as analternative to individually assigned paraprofessionals in inclusive high school classrooms.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 32: 1–15.

Causton-Theoharis, J., M.F. Giangreco, M. B. Doyle, and P.F. Vadasy. 2007. Paraprofession-als: The “sous chefs” of literacy instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children 40(1): 57–62.

Cremin, H., G. Thomas, and K. Vincett. 2005. Working with teaching assistants: Threemodels evaluated. Research Papers in Education 20: 413–32.

Giangreco, M.F., S.M. Broer, and J. Suter. (2010). Guidelines for selecting alternatives tooverreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedialand Special Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0741932509355951

Giangreco, M.F., S.W. Edelman, S.M. Broer, and M.B. Doyle. 2001. Paraprofessional supportof students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children 68:45–63.

Giangreco, M.F., J.C. Suter, and M.B. Doyle. 2010. Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools:A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 20:41–57.

Jones, K.H., and W.N. Bender. 1993. Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: Areview of the literature. Remedial and Special Education 14: 7–14.

Silverstein, S. 1974. Where the sidewalk ends. New York: Harper & Row.Webster, R., P. Blatchford, P. Bassett, P. Brown, C. Martin, and A. Russell. 2010. Double

standards and first principles: Framing teaching assistant support for pupils withspecial educational needs, European Journal of Special Needs Education 32, no. 1: 319–336.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

07:

21 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014