Teacher Assistants (TAs) are one of the key stakeholders to promote the inclusion of all students. In some cases, they are used as ‘the primary mechanism to support students with disabilities in the general education environment’ (Giangreco, Broer, & Suter 2011, p.25). In other words, TAs have become the ‘solution to inclusion’ (Rutherford 2012, 760) no matter the competencies they have, their initial or ongoing training or the role they are required to perform within or out of classrooms. This can be a consequence of the international guidelines for inclusive education (UNESCO,2005) that have pushed the different countries to relocate those students who traditionally were excluded from regular settings. This can imply more students with disabilities enrolled in mainstream schools, and more TA hired to support them (Blatchford et al. 2009; Butt, 2016).

However, it has been concluded that simply increasing the numbers of TAs employed in schools does not result in improved attainments of students (Farrell, Alborz, Howes, & Pearson, 2010). Research in different context have pointed out alternative roles such as TAs as facilitators, TAs promoting peer support arrangements (Brock & Carter 2016), TAs playing pedagogical roles (Webster et al., 2011) or TAs giving educational support as part as a larger network of support (authors, 2018). Thus, to foster the right learning environment and kind of support, TAs should play inclusion-oriented roles. Together with the teacher as well as other educational stakeholders, TAs should not only promote the presence of all children but also their participation and achievement.

Nevertheless, TA shouldn’t make pedagogical decisions for which they are neither trained nor qualified to make (Webster, Blatchford, & Russell 2010). Without TAs properly trained and supported, the quality of school practices is not guaranteed. The results of the DISS Project (Blatchford et al. 2009) found that the more support pupils received, from TAs, the less progress they made. These results were neither attributable to pupil characteristics nor in decisions made by TAs.  These can be better explained by the role and training policies that guide practices.

Moreover, Bosanquet, Radford, & Webster (2016) explained that the interaction between teacher and student is of higher quality than the one between TA and student. Therefore, TAs should be trained in specific strategies such as support the scaffolding act or maximising all learning opportunities. In their review, Brock & Carter (2013) show that providing an effective training, TAs, no matter the experience they have, can successfully implement educational practices.

Butt & Lowe, (2012) reported that the minimum entry requirements for TAs employed in the USA are required to hold a two-year post-secondary degree or have obtained an associate’s or higher degree while those employed in Australia or the United Kingdom are not required to have any formal qualification. Holland, Canada and France entry requirements are similar to those in the USA (Smith, 2017). However, initial training isn’t enough to effectively deal with the dynamic situations inherent to educational support, especially if disabilities and learning difficulties are involved.

In Catalonia, there are three kinds of TAs who work with students with severe behavioural problems or severe disabilities: The Special Education Educator (SEE), the Special Education Assistant (SEA) and the Carer (all three parts of the non-teaching staff). As is standardized on the Official School Organization and Management Document (Department-of-Education, 2015). The only one that is required to perform an inclusion-oriented role is the SEE. Each kind of TA belongs to a different employment category. It is also required a different level of initial training to get the job. However, there is no vocational training that fits with their official job descriptions. 

This communication provides TA experiences about working conditions in the Catalan context as well as an analysis of the legal framework on the matter. This will allow a better understanding of the deployment of this job. This is part of an exploratory mixed method investigation aimed at identifying the role and working conditions of TAs in mainstream Catalan (Spain) schools. One hundred and one TAs provided their experiences through a questionnaire providing a first insight into their situation. Of these TAs, 94 were Carers, 5 were SEEs and there was only 1 SEA in our sample. The TAs’ questionnaire had three sections: (a) TAs demographics and their future perspective, (b) job setting and training and (c) contractual and carried out tasks, general job description and conditions. For this communication, we analyse the third section. This section had open questions in which TAs could specify how they worked daily (i.e. space where they worked, coordination, supervision, work conditions, satisfaction). The results of this questionnaire were triangulated with semi-structured interviews to five pairs (n=10) of TAs and teachers that were working in the same classroom. Two union representatives were also interviewed to obtain a whole vision of the TAs’ reality. One of the union representatives was responsible for those TAs who were hired and managed by the administration (SEE and SEA), and, the other, was responsible for Carers who were hired and managed by subcontracted companies. Instruments -including interview guides for TAs, union representatives, teachers and the TAs’ questionnaire- are available online (see, author A, 2018). We also analysed a report provided by a Union of Carers. Questionnaires were online-delivered using Google forms. They were also hand delivered by three public psychologists, only 15 hand-delivered questionnaires were returned. Completion time for the questionnaire was estimated to be between 15 and 20 min. Semi-structured interviews to TAs, teachers and union representatives ranged in duration from 20 to 60 min. Excel spreadsheets were used to manage and scan the data file. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Interviews, the Union Report and open answers were analysed according to inductive categories and subcategories. Internal validity was ensured. Nvivo pro 11 version was used to perform the content analysis. The categories used for this communication are the following: working conditions, coordination, supervision and training.

The situation of TAs (non-teaching support staff) does not differ too much from that reported in international investigations. Comparing the three kinds of TAs, Carers are the ones that have the worst working conditions because they are hired per hours and managed by subcontracted companies. They can work in private or state schools while SEEs and SEAs only work in state schools and are hired by the public administration. These better conditions are being full-time employees, 40 h of paid training and greater stability. SEEs and SEAs have better salaries than carers. However, SEE, the TAs who have an educational role, have even a better salary because they belong to a higher employment category. Among the most repeated difficulties reported by TAs in the questionnaire’s open non-specific questions are those about hiring hours (n = 32), the lack of training (n = 21), the lack of work as a team (n = 17), appropriate tasks and method related difficulties (n = 18) and the lack of appreciation or acknowledgment of the work they do (n = 12). Although none of the three kinds of TA have optimal working conditions, the Carers take the worst part: “We need job stability, at any time we can be fired or be hired for fewer hours. When school finishes, we become unemployed without knowing if we will get the job in the next school year. This instability and uncertainty affect the children we support” (Carer, Union Report, 2015). Hire TAs per hours only considering “teaching” hours is a common practice (Brown & Devecchi, 2013; Butt, 2016). This affects Carer attendance at meetings and coordination, being a barrier for working as a team, their participation in decision-making and their supervision. We should also consider that TAs are not required to have any specific initial training.

Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Koutsoubou, M., Martin, C., Russell, A., … Rubie-Davis, C.(2009). Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: The Impact of Support Staff in Schools (Results from Strand 2, Wave 2).Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10001336/1/Blatchford2008Deployment.pdf Bosanquet, P., Radford, J., & Webster, R.(2016). The teaching assistant’s guide to effective interaction: How to maximise your practice. Abingdon, UK:Routledge. Brock, M.E., & Carter, E.W.(2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221.https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401 Brock, M.E., & Carter, E.W.(2016). Efficacy of Teachers Training Paraprofessionals to Implement Peer Support Arrangements. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 354–371.https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585564 Brown, J., & Devecchi, C. (2013). The impact of training on teaching assistants’ professional development: opportunities and future strategy. Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 369–386.https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762720 Butt, R. (2016). Employment procedures and practices challenge teacher assistants in mainstream schools. School Leadership & Management, 36(1), 63–79.https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1160211 Butt, R., & Lowe, K. (2012). Teaching assistants and class teachers: differing perceptions, role confusion and the benefits of skills-based training. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 207–219.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003739678 Department-of-Education (2015). Document per a l’Organització i la Gestió dels Centres 2015-16. Generalitat de Catalunya. Farrell, P., Alborz, A., Howes, A., & Pearson, D. (2010). The impact of teaching assistants on improving pupils’ academic achievement in mainstream schools: a review of the literature. Educational Review, 62(4), 435–448.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.486476 Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S.M., & Suter, J.C. (2011). Guidelines for Selecting Alternatives to Overreliance on Paraprofessionals: Field-Testing in Inclusion-Oriented Schools. Article Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 22–38.https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355951 Rutherford, G. (2012). In, out or somewhere in between? Disabled students’ and teacher aides’ experiences of school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 757–774.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.509818 Smith, P. H. (2017). The paradox of higher vocational education : the teaching assistant game , the pursuit of capital and the self assistant game , the pursuit of capital and the self. Educational Review, 1–20.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1294148 UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for all. Paris:UNESCO.http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Inclusion_UNESCO_2006.pdf. Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., & Russell, A. (2011). The wider pedagogical role of teaching assistants. School Leadership and Management, 31(1), 3–20.https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540562