Browser does not support script.
Receive regular email updates and personalise your pages. Register now!
Ms Kathleen M. Kerrigan Abronhill High SchoolCumbernauld, Scotland
Initiatives to facilitate inclusion have implications for supporting learning. Provision of an appropriate curriculum is the responsibility of all departments, and teachers must meet additional support needs within the classroom. Support for Learning (SfL) teachers continue to support departments and pupils in this task and the support of special educational needs assistants (SNAs) or similar non-teaching adults in a supporting role, has become more prevalent in mainstream schools in recent years.
Proponents of school improvement suggest that there is much to be learned from listening to the pupil voice. There has been recent comment (Ruddick and Flutter, 2000) that, in our ever-increasing consumer society, it is somewhat strange that pupils are rarely seen as consumers worth consulting. This paper summarises a recent research project to investigate pupil perspectives of strategies deployed to support learning in a mainstream school, within the context of the implementation of inclusion. The research was conducted in a secondary school in west-central Scotland, using a case study approach. Data were gathered from interviews with pupils (aged fourteen to sixteen years), class teachers and support staff, classroom observation and analysis of available written information.
The Class TeacherThe impact of the class teacher in supporting learning was important to all pupils. Approaches that circumvent the difficulties experienced by dyslexic pupils, and support inclusive access to the curriculum, are recommended by many writers in this field, such as Riddick (1996), Crombie (1994), and Reid (2003). Sample pupils experienced difficulties with literacy, and favoured teaching styles and methodologies where literacy was not a prerequisite for learning.
' I like my teacher because he makes it interesting. He doesn ' t make us sit and write he talks to us about it . . . if you miss anything out [when writing] you have already spoke about it. '
Positive working relationships with specific teachers were viewed as important to pupils. Classes that pupils enjoyed, and in which they believed they were making good progress, revealed positive, working relationships with the class teacher. A sample pupil appreciated the entertaining, humorous style of one teacher ' … he gets the work done but has a laugh as well ' . It was observed that many pupils, some capable of disruptive or challenging behaviour, responded well to this approach.
Others pupils appreciated teachers with a consistently approachable and supportive manner. Classroom observation revealed that teachers who had been described in this way attempted to spend time with each pupil individually, as a regular part of their teaching. All pupils viewed individual support from a class teacher as very helpful ' … If you got support once or twice a week from your teacher, it could help a lot ' .
It is significant that the approaches most appreciated by pupils are supportive of all pupils and reduce the potential for embarrassment, as reported by Thornton (1994) and Allan (1995). It could be argued that these classroom methodologies and teaching approaches take account of pupils ' uniqueness, in keeping with the Salamanca principles (1994) and the views of Thomas et al. (1998), and could be regarded as inclusive.
Pupils identified occasions when the teacher ' s whole class and educational responsibilities resulted in them having less time to support individual pupils.
' The class teacher does help you but they need to help the rest of the class also, they can ' t just stay with you. ' (pupil)
A sample pupil with a reluctance to publicly accept support, particularly from identified support staff (SfL teachers or SNAs), was observed accepting support from a class teacher. Similarly, one teacher commented that alternative teaching materials that are noticeably different from those provided to other pupils, could be viewed unfavourably, resulting in pupil de-motivation. These issues are consistent with the observations of Hales (2001) that low self-esteem or raised anxiety can be symptoms of dyslexia. They could also be viewed in light of the findings of Thornton (1994) and Allan (1995) that secondary students can be self-conscious about receiving support, due to fear of labelling or stigma, and that children with learning difficulties, above all, seek to avoid being singled out as different and value ' belonging ' before academic success. It is suggested that pupils feel that individual support from the class teacher, particularly when it is provided to all pupils, is less visible, and therefore more acceptable, particularly to those with self-esteem issues.
Classes that pupils said they enjoyed, and in which they felt they were making good progress, contained fifteen pupils or less (and could therefore be defined as small). Pupils were observed making very good progress in most of these classes, with regular individual support from class teachers. Teachers valued small classes, particularly when trying to support learning, as they perceived that small classes helped them to provide individual support to pupils.
' . . . Being such a small class made it a lot easier to get round and work with pupils and spend a good deal of time with them on particular problems they had ' .
These observations therefore agree with Wilson et al. (2002) that small class size helps facilitate individual support from the class teacher, appears to have beneficial effects upon pupil achievement, and can result in teacher perceptions of more manageable workload and reduced stress. It is perhaps relevant that special schools operate a pupil teacher ratio of no greater than 1:10.
The success of support strategies involving the teacher in individual pupil support appear to be dependent upon the needs and ethos within the class and whether pupils had the attention span and motivation to work independently. The number and variety of needs within one ' bottom set ' class made progress difficult.
' . . . The class is a big class, a lot of discipline in it, so the teacher is always distracted ' . (pupil)
This class comprised twelve pupils, most with learning or behaviour needs and many with a short concentration span. Two sample pupils were members of this class, but neither listed this subject as one that they enjoyed or in which they were making good progress. Indeed, one stated that they found this subject one of the hardest. The teacher regularly tried to provide individual support to pupils, particularly when co-operative teaching was available. However, this was very difficult due to frequent disciplinary issues and pupil demands for teacher attention, despite a differentiated curriculum, SNA input every lesson, small class size and weekly co-operative teaching. The teacher believed that this was her most challenging class. This would reinforce the observations of Aylett (2000) Harlen and Malcolm (1997) that positive pupil experiences and outcomes are affected not only by setting but by a combination of factors and of Ireson (2002) that neither setting nor mixed ability grouping provide significant advantages in raising attainment. In terms of Achievement for All (SOEID, 1996), setting by ability can enable support to be directed at classes where needs are greatest. It appeared that the significant level of support available in this situation was insufficient to meet the many varied needs within the class.
Perspective emerged on the following aspects of support for learning. The liaison role was not commented upon, perhaps because this is a less visible aspect of the SfL role.
Pupils viewed co-operative teaching with a SfL teacher as an effective form of support, including a pupil who was observed rejecting classroom support! Similar to the findings of Thornton (1994), all pupils appreciated a reduction in waiting time for teacher attention. One pupil believed that support in the classroom was the most effective form of support available. Others perceived that the co-operative teacher supports all pupils and classroom management and discipline as required, ' …One teacher can watch the class and the other one can help us ' .
This attributes a higher professional status to the SfL teacher than those reported in previous research of pupil views (Thornton, 1994), where pupils viewed the support teacher as the ' helper ' in the classroom.
Class teachers in the sample school viewed co-operative teaching with an SfL teacher as effective, believing that an additional teacher allowed the provision of individual pupil support and whole-class support. It enabled teachers who regularly worked with individual pupils opportunities and extra support to do this. It is therefore possible that class teachers appreciated the pedagogical understanding and support with learning that an SfL teacher can offer (Calder and Grieve, 2004).
' I think being able to work with pupils on an individual basis is probably the best possible solution and that is only possible when there is extra help in the class ' .
SfL Tutorial Classes (to address needs not usually met within the curriculum).Pupils viewed SfL tutorials as an effective form of support, including the pupil who found it difficult to accept the input of support staff in the classroom.
' I did (find tutorials helpful) my reading improved and my spelling and my writing ' .
Pupil appreciation of SfL tutorials accords with the findings of Hornby and Kidd (2001), Thornton (1994), Hamill and Boyd (2002), and Price and Timmons (2004), who all found that pupils appreciated opportunities to access support specific to their needs in a base within mainstream schools.
SfL tutorials were provided as an alternative to one certificated subject; their curriculum was therefore different from the curriculum provided to most of their peers. Thomas et al. (1998) promote systems which address the needs of all pupils rather strategies which than highlight the needs of a few, they therefore might not consider this approach to be truly inclusive. However, sample pupils welcomed opportunities for direct teaching to address specific difficulties and thereby improve curricular access and enhance self-esteem. It is therefore suggested that pupils accord with the views of Lingard (1996) and Lindsay (2003) who value appropriate education over full inclusion.
The SfL department provided consultation and staff development to support teachers verbally and formally in writing. A recent evaluation revealed that teachers found the information very effective. All pupils agreed that teachers should be aware of their needs because they could be more sympathetic, realistic in their expectations and offer individual support:
' Yes (they should be aware) because they give you a lot more time and they give you more help ' .
This paper has discussed the value of support by the class teacher and its capacity to support learning in a way that is “invisible†and inclusive. If class teachers are to understand and meet additional support needs in the classroom, then they require appropriate information, skills and support to enable them to do this effectively. This underlines the relevance of (the SfL roles) of staff development and consultation and is endorsed by Lipsky and Gartner (1998) and Robertson et al. (1994) who identify the need for teacher support in facilitating successful inclusion.
All pupils differentiated between the input of the SNA and class teacher. They commented upon the teacher ' s responsibility for the whole class, recognising the teacher as the educator. Calder and Grieve (2004) state that tasks supporting pupil access to the curriculum could be carried out by a responsible adult, however effective support of learning and teaching requires the professional knowledge base and skills of a teacher. Pupils viewed SNA input as supportive of individual pupils rather than whole classes.
' (SNA) only looks after a few people in the class so that means she is not getting taken up with other people ' s time and can come to me ' .
Sample pupils particularly appreciated support with reading which accords with the findings of Thornton (1994), at the time of Thornton ' s research, support tasks such as reading were performed by a SfL teacher. This study found SNAs supporting access to the curriculum by performing tasks such as reading, supporting pupils with personal needs, repeating teacher instructions and providing an ' extra pair of hands ' . This could suggest that where SNA input is successfully supporting curricular access, SfL teachers are more able to focus upon tasks that support learning and teaching. This may account, in part, for the recognition of the professional status of SfL teachers by pupils and staff in this study.
Some teachers believed that the input of SNAs was ' . . . variable, depending upon the personality of the help ' , they were of the view that the least effective form of support was another person in the classroom who was unable to fulfil a support role effectively. Observation of the relationship between a pupil and SNA in a specific class indicated pupil over-dependence and a denial of independent learning as evidenced by Lorenz, (1998), Rose (2000) and Tennant (2001). The class teacher commented:
' (The pupil) became quite dependent on (SNA) and I feel that this has had a long term effect because (pupil) expectations of what should be done for him are very high, if for absence reasons there was no SNA it was difficult to get (pupil) to do anything and I feel a lot of his own responsibility had been taken away from him ' .
Lorenz (1998, p.14) cautions against the practice of support staff being ' velcroed ' to one pupil, in addition to the factors mentioned above, this can result in pupil frustration, embarrassment and the compounding of a low self-esteem. This sample pupil found the subject very difficult, believed that they were making little progress and demonstrated a very low level of confidence in this class.
Calder and Grieve (2004) state that teachers must understand the support that a responsible adult (who is not a teacher) can offer and delegate tasks accordingly. It is possible that class teachers perceived fewer problems with cooperative teaching because they do not require to explain to a non-teaching member of staff what is required, and appreciate the support of a fellow teacher, as mentioned by Lacey (2001), with whom they can share (or pass on) the meeting of additional support needs. It would be interesting to conduct similar research in this education authority when the SNA workforce is trained and appointed for the skills and experiences they can offer and teachers are trained in their use.
The findings of this study illustrate the significant changes in support for learning since similar research ten years ago, when Thornton (1994) found that pupils viewed SfL teachers as ' helpers ' . It is likely that SfL teachers at this time were supporting both learning and access to the curriculum. Managers of SfL resources should now consider the views of Calder and Grieve (2004) and distinguish between the support required to access the curriculum and delegate this to SNAs and support for learning and teaching, which should be provided by teachers.
Class teachers have perhaps the most important role to play in supporting learning. If teachers are to understand and meet additional support needs in the classroom then they require appropriate information, skills and resources to enable them to do this effectively. Training needs will vary according to the needs of the teachers and pupils. However, the importance of SfL roles that support teachers (e.g., consultation and staff development) assume a greater significance as mainstream schools strive to facilitate inclusion.
The observed practice of allocating SNAs to schools with little training or experience can result in input that is counter-productive. There are therefore urgent training needs for SNAs. Education authorities should accelerate progress towards a position where SNAs are appointed on the basis of qualifications, skills and experience.
SfL tutorials to address specific needs are valued by pupils and smaller class sizes are appreciated by both pupils and staff when trying to support learning in the classroom. Pupils in special education are provided with a lower pupil teacher ratio to help provide the support required. Perhaps there should be consideration of inclusive ways to implement this level of support for pupils with significant needs in mainstream schools.
Consulting pupils could help determine a means of meeting additional support needs in a manner with which pupils are comfortable and able to experience success. This is particularly important for pupils who are reluctant to accept specific aspects of support.
In conclusion, the demands of inclusion have significant implications for supporting learning in mainstream schools. Schools must ensure that strategies to support learning are inclusive, which has implications for curriculum, development and deployment of staff. Resources may include non-teaching adults in the classroom; input that managers and teachers must learn to manage effectively.
The fact that 56% of pupils with Records of Needs in Scotland are educated in mainstream settings suggests that the process of inclusion is well underway. Indeed, the deployment of SNA staff observed for this study could suggest that the pace of change in relation to inclusion, appears to be occurring so quickly that resources and staff training needs are rarely met in advance.
This study found that pupils were satisfied with many strategies to support learning. Also that, given appropriate training, support, resources and classroom conditions, the classroom teacher has the potential to address support needs in a less visible way, in a manner that is more acceptable to some pupils, and therefore inclusive. The support needs of each pupil are unique and dependent upon many factors, including their educational needs, personality and esteem issues. This study illustrates that pupils are capable of mature and insightful perspectives and supports the view that pupil perspectives can offer teachers and managers valuable information when seeking to provide effective support for learning.
Allan, J. (1995). ' How are we doing? Teachers ' views on the effectiveness of co-operative teaching ' in Support for Learning, 10(3), 127-131.
Aylett, A. (2000). ' Setting: Does it have to be a negative experience? ' in Support for Learning, 15(1), 41-45.
Bearn, A. & Smith, C. (1998). ' How learning support is perceived by mainstream colleagues ' in Support for Learning, 13(1), 14-20.
Calder, I. and Grieve, A. (2004). ' Working with other adults: What teachers need to know ' in Educational Studies, 30(2), 27-38.
Crombie, M. (1994). Specific Learning Difficulties: A teacher ' s guide. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
Duffield, J. Allen, J. Turner, E. & Morris, B. (2000). ' Pupils voices on Achievement: an alternative to the standards agenda ' in Cambridge Journal of Education 30(2), 263-274.
Farrell, P. Balshaw, M. H. & Polat, F. (1999). The Management, Role and Training of Learning Support Assistants: London: DfEE.
Forlin, C. (2001). ' Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers ' in Educational Research, 43(3), 235-245.
Hales, G. (2001) in Peer, L & Reid, G (eds) (2001). Dyslexia- Successful Inclusion in the Secondary School. London: Wiley.
Hamill, P. & Boyd, B. (2002). ' Equality, fairness and rights - The young person ' s voice ' in British Journal of Special Education, 29 (3), 111-117.
Harlen, W. & Malcolm, H. (1997). Setting and Streaming: A research review. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Hornby, G. (1999). ' Inclusion or Delusion: Can one size fit all? ' in Support for Learning, 14 (4), 152-157.
Hornby, G and Kidd, R (2001). ' Transfer from Special to Mainstream - Ten Years Later ' in British Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 10-17.
Ireson, J. Hallam, S. & Hurley, C. (2002). Ability Grouping in the Secondary School: Effects on GCSE attainment in English, Mathematics and Science. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Exeter University, September 10-14th 2002.
Lacey, P. (2001). Support Partnerships: Collaboration in action. London: David Fulton.
Lacey, P. & Lomas, J. (1997). Support Services and the Curriculum: A practical guide to collaboration. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Lindsay, G. (1997). ' Values, Right and Dilemmas ' in British Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 55-59.
Lindsay, G. (2003). ' Inclusive Education: A critical perspective ' in British Journal of Special Education 30(1), 3-12.
Lingard, T. (1996). ' Why our theoretical models of integration are inhibiting effective innovation ' in Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 1, 39-45.
Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (1998). ' Factors for successful inclusion: learning from the past, looking forward to the future ' , in Vitello, S.V. & Mithaug (eds). Inclusive Schooling: National and international perspectives. Mahurah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lorenz, S. (1998). Effective In-class Support: The management of support staff in mainstream and special schools. London: David Fulton.
Peer, L. & Reid, G. (editors) (2001). Dyslexia: Successful inclusion in the secondary school. London: Wiley.
Preece, D. & Timmons, P. (2004). ' Consulting with students: evaluating a mainstream inclusion centre ' in Support for Learning, 19(1), 24-30.
Reid, G (2003). Dyslexia: A Practitioners Handbook. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Riddick, B. (1996). Living with Dyslexia. London: Routledge.
Rose, R. (2000). ' Using classroom support in a primary school ' in British Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 191-196.
Ruddick, J. & Flutter, J. (2000). ' Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: Carving a new order of experience ' in Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75-89.
Ruddick, J. & Flutter, J. (2002). Consulting Young People in Schools. Cambridge: Economic and Social Research Council.
SOEID (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department). (1996). Achievement for All. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Tennant, G. (2001). ' The Rhetoric and Reality of Learning Support in the Classroom: Towards a synthesis ' in Support for Learning, 16(4), 184-188.
Thomas, G. Walker. D. & Webb, J. (1998). The Making of the Inclusive School. London: Routledge Falmer.
Thornton, A. (1994). Dyslexic pupils ' experiences and perceptions of different forms of learning support. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: University of Edinburgh.
UNESCO (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wilson, V. (2002). Does small really make a difference?: A review of the literature on the effects of class size on teaching practice and pupils' behaviour and attachment. Edinburgh: SCRE.
Ms Kathleen Kerrigan is Principal Teacher of Pupil Support (Support for Learning) in Abronhill High School, Cumbernauld, near Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, where she has taught for seven years. In her eighteen years of teaching experience, Kathleen has been a classroom teacher in mainstream and special schools and has supported learning as a peripatetic learning support teacher. Her current post involves managing support for learning in a mainstream secondary school; leading a team comprising teaching staff, special needs assistants and peripatetic support teachers. This paper summarises research conducted as part of an MSc in Support for Learning from Strathclyde University, Glasgow.
Buy publications by the author
Contribute a discussion paper to this year's online conferences on the transformation of education