Session Information
04 SES 01 A, Construction of Differences
Paper Session
Contribution
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000188 EndHTML:0000005965 StartFragment:0000002635 EndFragment:0000005929 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/kwright/Desktop/All%20You%20Need%20Is%20Love.doc @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Times-Roman"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } ‘Classroom Assistant’ is both a specific and generic term to describe a range of paid, additional, non-teaching staff employed in Scottish schools. In generic terms it covers posts such as Additional Support Needs auxiliary, behaviour support assistant, classroom auxiliary, nursery nurse, pupil support assistant and support for learning assistant. Given this, for Wilson et al. (2001), the literature in this area contains “a considerable lack of clarity surrounding the use of the term and the functions assigned to the post” (2001:3). In the United Kingdom the Warnock Report (1978), and in Scotland, the HMI Report (1978) and the subsequent Education (Scotland) Act 1981 (HMSO, 1981) advocated inclusion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) into mainstream schools. Such a major shift in policy required additional staff and it was this increase in pupils with SEN in mainstream schools that was the most important factor influencing the change in the make-up of school staffing and the development of the provision of paid non-teaching staff. This gradual ‘opening up’ of the classroom (Morgan et al. 1998) has resulted in a dilemma for classroom assistants in that they have a wide remit of duties, some educational, but receive little preparation and advice about these. As a result of this classroom assistants remain on the margins of school hierarchies as witnessed by short-term contracts, low pay, limited access to formal training and ‘low status’. Despite this marginalisation classroom assistants are responsible for ‘…some of the most challenging and complex needs’ and are ‘…pivotal to the development of successful inclusive practice’ (O’ Brien and Garner, 2001:1). Stead et al. (2007) agree, stating that classroom assistants play an important, sometimes “critical role in maintaining some pupils in mainstream education” (2007: 186). However, inclusive practice tends to be ‘top down’ in terms of policy and, as Fullen (1993) argues, many such education policies fail because they lack any participation or collaboration with the ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1983), who can be crucial to the success of a policy. Given their marginalisation classroom assistants have the potential to be these very street level bureaucrats and their local or ‘vernacular’ influences have the potential to create divergent, heterogeneous pressures at the local level. The vernacular can be seen in terms of language but, as Corbett (1996) argues, whilst the psychological and social characteristics of special education have been considered, along with the influence of policy and politics, language is an area that has been somewhat overlooked and generally neglected. Hence, currently there is a gap in our knowledge and a significant need to understand what part the language of classroom assistants plays in the construction of educational need and the effect this may have on the successful implementation of inclusion.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
ARNESEN, A-L., MIETOLA, R. & LAHELMA, E. (2007) ‘Language of inclusion and diversity: policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11 (1), pp. 97-110. AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P. & BURDEN, R. (2002) ‘Inclusion in action: an in-depth case study of an effective inclusive secondary school in the south-west of England’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6 (2), pp. 143-163. BARKHAM, J. (2008) ‘Suitable work for women? Roles, relationships and changing identities of 'other adults' in the early years classroom’, British Educational Research Journal, 34, (6), pp. 839-853. BENJAMIN, S. (2002) The Micropolitics of Inclusive Education: An Ethnography. Oxford: OUP. CORBETT, J. (1996) Bad-Mouthing: The language of special needs. London: Routledge. FULLAN, M. (1993) Change Forces. London: Falmer. LAWSON, H., PARKER, M. & SIKES, P. (2006) ‘Seeking stories: reflections on a narrative approach to researching understandings of inclusion’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21 (1), pp 55-68. LIPSKY, M. (1983) Street Level Bureaucracy. London: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. MORGAN, J., ASHBAKER, B. & FORBUSH, D. (1998) ‘Strengthening the Teaching Team: Teachers and Paraprofessionals learning together’, Support for Learning, 13 (3), pp. 115-117. MOYLES, J. & SUSHITZKY, W. (1997) ‘Jills of all trades?’ Classroom Assistants in KS1 Classes’. London. Association of Teachers and Lecturers. O’ BRIEN, T. & GARNER, P. (2001) Untold Stories: Learning Support Assistants and their work. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. SIKES, P., LAWSON, H. & PARKER, M. (2007) ‘Voices On: teachers and teaching assistants talk about inclusion’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11 (3), pp. 355-370 WILSON, V., SCHLAPP, U., DAVIDSON, J. (2001) ‘An ‘Extra Pair of Hands’?: Managing classroom assistants in Scottish Primary Schools’
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.