Research School Network: Working effectively with Teaching Assistants Last blog in the series on the EEF’s SEND guidance report, focusing on effective and ineffective use of teaching assistants.

I remember where I was when I first saw the graph below in 2014. As the SENCo of a large, secondary mainstream school, my immediate dreadful thought was that this would spell the end to the role of teaching assistants in the classroom. As a class teacher who had had my fair share of lower ability sets, the feeling of impending loss of support for myself and those children made my stomach drop.

It literally says ​‘Not worth it: Teaching assistants’. If ever it felt like an excuse for head teachers to cut their SEN budget, this was it. Fortunately, whilst there were anecdotal reports of some heads around the country doing just that, it didn’t occur anywhere near me.

Of course, presenting the information in this way is more than a bit disingenuous because alongside this simplistic graphic, the EEF also reported that ​‘Evidence suggests that TAs can have a positive impact on academic achievement’ as well as ​‘In some cases teachers and TAs work together effectively, leading to increases in attainment’.

And herein lies the rub: ​‘in some cases’. There are some schools who seem to be getting it right when it coming to the partnership working between the staff in the classroom, but only some.

What were/​are we getting wrong? What are the ​‘some’ schools getting right?

Ineffective use of teaching assistants

Evidence points us towards the conclusion that the education sector fell in the trap of thinking that more is more: more adults in the classroom = students will learn more. As the DISS project found out, it was actually the opposite which was true.

Hopefully by now, there is a theme emerging from this series of blogs. Obviously, they are all in regards to how to improve outcomes for your learners with SEND, however, it is in the ​‘how’ where the theme springs.

Being strategic. Training staff effectively. Ensuring clarity in the role.

And this is where the first downfall seemed to have occurred with the deployment of teaching assistants: the thought that the mere presence of another adult would be supportive to the teacher and enable them to crack on with teaching the majority, whilst the TA supported the ones who needed more help.

Why did we ever think that a teaching assistant, who we pay pittance, has had no formal training, probably is a mother returning to work after their children have flown the nest (the DISS project found that the majority of TAs were female, aged over 36, and identified as being of a white ethnic background) would be able to jump into a role and improve the outcomes of our learners with the most significant learning needs?

Any deployment that places the TA into the role without formal training and proper support will be ineffective.

Effective use of teaching assistants

Therefore, the counter thought must be true. Effective deployment of teaching assistants requires careful thought from those in a leadership role – strategy and implementation play a crucial part in every change and decision that a school makes, and the deployment of TAs is no different.

Another key message rings through the 2015 EEF publication: Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants.

This guidance report makes 7 recommendations which consider how to use TAs effectively in classroom contexts; in delivering structured interventions outside of class; and in integrating the learning ensuring explicit connections are made between the classroom and structured interventions.

Of the 7 recommendations in the TA guidance report, one which could be considered to be key is:

The rise and rise of the ​‘velcro’ TA has been driven by the clamour surrounding the idea that an extra human is good for supporting pupils with SEN, with little thought given to the possibility of negative consequences in this. It appears to have caused an over-reliance on support by some pupils which has inhibited independent learning.

To counteract this, it is crucial that training is given to ensure that TAs know and understand their role in avoiding dependence. There is a very useful case study included in the SEND guidance report which models how to use this scaffolding framework to outline more effective interactions between pupil and TA.

Self-scaffolding: TA observes that the pupils is working independently and does not intervene.

Prompting: TA uses wait time (10 secs) to see if the pupil can get started, asks a prompt question such as ​‘Can you remember what Mr T said you need to do first?’, or gestures to a useful resource such as a model on an interactive white board or a word-bank on a table.

Clueing: TA uses a statement, ​‘The ruler will help you’, or question, ​‘How could the ruler help you?’ to give one piece of information at a time to support accessing the task. Several clues may be needed.

Modelling: TA demonstrates the next step the child needs to complete and then asks the child to take this step. ​‘I am using the word-bank to find a word to help me describe my character…’

Correcting: The TA provides answers and requires no independent thinking. Occasionally it is appropriate to do this, however, TAs should always aim instead to model and encourage pupils to apply new skills or knowledge first.

EEF: Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools, 2020

By ensuring that your TA group is well-versed in this inverse pyramid, they can play their part in supporting the pupil (and thus the teacher) but without inhibiting independence. It may be helpful to consider an NQT-type training programme as ongoing CPD as it will cover key concepts such as scaffolding and questioning which are key skills for an effective classroom practitioner.

This is where the evidence would suggest that those ​‘some’ schools are getting it right. Teaching Assistants cannot be neglected in terms of a solid induction, ongoing training and proper support.