The identity making of teachers, pupil assistants and the diagnosed pupil: discourses in the context of segregated special education units

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to explore how the perceptions held by pupil assistants (PAs) and teachers regarding their professions shaped the identities of PAs and teachers belonging to segregated special education units (SEUs), as well as pupils with neurodevelopmental diagnoses (NDs). A qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews and Critical Discourse Analysis inspired by Fairclough with an emphasis on members’ resources was conducted in two educational teams composed of PAs and teachers. Two overarching discourses emerged in which the PAs presented themselves as spokespersons of the pupils’ thoughts and feelings, which created an identity of the diagnosed pupils as less capable and the PAs as caretakers. The teachers represented a view less affected by NDs; the pupils were identified as individuals capable of learning. The results illustrated the importance of member resources as an explanatory factor in the creation of discourses and identity making of occupational groups and pupils with NDs.

KEYWORDS:

• Pupil assistants
• segregated special education units
• neurodevelopmental disorders
• Critical Discourse Analysis
• members’ resources

Introduction

Views regarding neurodevelopmental diagnoses (NDs) and segregated special education units (SEUs) held by teachers’ and pupil assistants’¹ (PAs) have consequences for pupils’ prerequisites for learning, development and inclusion (Leifler 2022). Pedagogical staff’s frames of reference are affected by whether the staff embrace a so-called categorical or relational perspective in their view of pupils needing support. This affects the identities ascribed to the pupils. The present article takes a discourse analytic perspective in a Swedish context, directing attention to two educational teams assigned to SEUs intended for pupils diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)-one consisting of PAs and the other of educated teachers.

PAs are a common and increasing phenomenon in the educational system worldwide (Giangreco, Doyle, and Suter 2014; Griffin and Blatchford 2021). In Swedish schools alone, 18796 PAs were affiliated with the educational system in 2021, with 71.2% of these individuals working in the compulsory school context (SKR 2021). In comparison, 67676 teachers were employed in compulsory school in 2021. Thus, PAs represent a large occupational group in Swedish compulsory school. Yet, neither the tasks that PAs are responsible for nor the reasons why PAs are involved in Swedish schools have been explicitly outlined. This point was brought to public attention in an official governmental report noting the following:

Although the group makes up a relatively large proportion of the employees in school, it has not been determined what pupil assistants should have for tasks in school or what types of assignments they should have (SOU 2021:11, 347).

The Swedish case is not unique when it comes to questions of PAs’ involvement in educational practices or their unspecified assignments and whether PAs have a positive or negative impact on pupils’ learning processes (Griffin and Blatchford 2021; Webster et al. 2011). PAs also view themselves as important assets in providing special educational support, regardless of educational qualifications (Edin 2022; Lindqvist et al. 2011; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020).

Another phenomenon appearing both internationally and in Swedish compulsory school is the presence of SEUs, which have emerged despite the intention of government and policymakers to provide inclusive education for all learners (Hjörne and Säljö 2019b; Malmqvist and Nilholm 2016; Slee 2019). Both worldwide and in Sweden, the numbers of pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD have been steadily increasing; alongside this increase, there has also been an increase in differentiated special educational provision consisting of segregated learning environments (Bejnö et al. 2019; Hjörne and Säljö 2019a; Odenbring, Johansson, and Hunehäll Berndtsson 2017; Slee 2019; Socialstyrelsen 2021).

According to Barton (1997), segregated solutions in the educational system should be regarded as a historical phenomenon and not a modern invention. This phenomenon has contributed to an exclusionary culture and tradition in schools, which has legitimised the creation, and maintenance, of segregated learning environments. In addition to Barton’s (1997) arguments, Slee and Allan (2001) emphasise the establishment of a discourse founded in pathology (i.e. NDs). As Slee and Allan argue, such discourse contributes to a binary approach to special education that relates to normality and abnormality, leading to ‘the incorporation of pupil referral units as an accepted part of the educational landscape’ (Slee and Allan 2001, 179).

In Swedish compulsory schools, the use of SEUs intended for pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD is a widespread special educational provision. Although there are varying reasons given for placing diagnosed pupils in SEUs, such decisions are frequently identified as responses to deficiencies in the regular school, in combination with categorical views and collectivistic attributes assigned to the diagnosed pupils. (Edin 2022; Malmqvist 2018; Malmqvist and Nilholm 2016). PAs are usually present in SEUs; thus, they represent an influential occupational group providing special education. PAs’ roles and levels of education vary considerably, but commonly, PAs lack both a teaching degree and formal qualifications for teaching pupils in need of special educational support.

The presence of educational teams in Swedish schools and SEUs is a well-recognised way of organising pedagogical staff (Norrström 2021). The teams can consist of different occupational groups, including PAs, teachers and special needs teachers. Educational teams are connected to specific classes or pedagogical units in which the team members possess a certain degree of authority regarding pedagogical issues (Edin 2022; Havnes 2009). As an influential occupational group, PAs were noticed in an earlier study by Edin (2022) but not elaborated on further; this points to the need for additional inquiry regarding the role and influence of PAs in SEUs. This is important because of the occupational group’s involvement in special educational practices and practical implications regarding their views on pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD.

Based on the above-mentioned points, the purpose of this article is to explore how PAs’ and teachers’ perceptions of their respective professions shape the identities of PAs and teachers attached to SEUs, as well as the identities of pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD.

The role of PAs

Studies from England, Australia, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Sweden have described the complexity surrounding the profession of PAs (Devecchi et al. 2012; Griffin and Blatchford 2021; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020; Sharma and Salend 2016; Takala 2007; Webster et al. 2011). In relation to pupils in need of special educational support, previous research has focused on such issues as independence/dependence, inclusion and PAs’ pedagogical role. There is a strong consensus among researchers that PAs have inadequate pedagogical skills, making them unfit for teaching; nevertheless, this occupational group is involved in pedagogical decision making when dealing with pupils in need of special educational support (Breyer, Lederer, and Gasteiger-Klicpera 2021; Butt 2016; Gibson, Paatsch, and Toe 2016; Webster et al. 2011). Several studies have also concluded that there is no clear positive relationship between pupils’ academic achievements and support from PAs (Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020; Sharma and Salend 2016; Webster et al. 2011). This phenomenon is explained by several interconnected components related to PAs as an occupational group.

A significant factor is that in most cases, PAs are assigned to assist the pupils with the most severe special educational needs, meaning that the support is provided by members of an occupation who have low expertise in special education compared with teachers (Butt 2016; Giangreco 2021; Webster et al. 2011). Additional factors comprise how teaching is conducted by PAs in practice and how the presence of PAs affects the interaction between the teacher and the pupils in need of support. PAs often perform one-to-one teaching with specific pupils; commonly, the teaching takes place in an environment that is segregated from the ordinary class. When PAs take the role of primary educators, the teacher – pupil relationship is attenuated, and there is a risk that the relationship between the PA and the pupil will contribute to a negative dependence on support; this can hinder the development of independent pupils and serve as an impeding factor for inclusion with peers (Falkmer et al. 2015; Gibson, Paatsch, and Toe 2016; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020; Sharma and Salend 2016; Webster, Blatchford, and Russell 2013). Furthermore, PAs tend to become ‘experts’ concerning pupils’ deficits and their need for support; thus, they come to influence pedagogical decisions (Conboy 2021; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020; Mackenzie 2011; Edin 2022). The perception of PAs’ expertise is referred to as experience and individual characteristics rather than formal education; this reinforces PAs’ role as experts for pupils in need of support (Butt 2018; Conboy 2021; Edin 2022; Mackenzie 2011).

PAs’ involvement in pedagogical issues and decision making is not only a matter of pupils’ goal fulfilment but also of pupils’ well-being. This is brought to attention in Conboy’s (2021) study, in which PAs’ understanding of their roles in pedagogical practice concerning pupils’ mental health is explored. PAs often referred to relationship building as an important part of the occupation group’s duties, emphasising a caring and mothering role. Conboy’s (2021) explains this with reference to attachment theory, suggesting that when PAs provide a trustful relationship, pupils in need of support are bound to the PAs, who in turn offer them a safe haven. Griffin and Blatchford (2021) also recognise PAs’ non-teaching role and argue that PAs should take on a role as edu-carers to function as a mediating tool between the teacher and the pupil, but at the same time, they should refrain from complicating the relationship between the two. Thus, PAs have a twofold role in interacting with both pupils and teachers, and the aim is to reduce pupils’ need for support in a stepwise fashion in favour of increased independence. However, the nurturing role can serve as an obstacle to inclusion because of the protective character in the PAs’ reasoning when it comes to pupils with NDs. Furthermore, PAs involved in SEUs often use a categorical perspective when explaining pupils’ need for special educational support (Edin 2022; Mackenzie 2011).

Previous research is consistent in finding that PAs’ inexplicit work assignments and lack of special pedagogical education can result in consequences for pupils in need of special educational support. Scholars have identified several shortcomings in the arrangement of PAs’ tasks concerning pupils requiring such support. A conclusion drawn is that PAs should not be assigned the overall pedagogical responsibility or function of primary teachers, nor should they act as isolated islands; instead, they should work in close connection with teachers and constitute a piece of the complete pedagogical practice (Butt 2018; Coates et al. 2017; Griffin and Blatchford 2021; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020).

Methodology

Context and participants

Two schools in a Swedish municipality (Forest School and Lake School) were selected for this study. The selection was based on the presence of SEUs intended for pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD in these schools. The SEUs of the two schools differed from each other to some extent: Forest School’s SEU consisted of one class with 13 pupils, whereas Lake School’s SEU included 24 pupils divided into four classes. Both schools were secondary schools comprising grades 7–9 and containing both regular classes and SEUs. The overall pedagogical responsibility for the SEUs was delegated by the principals to educational teams. Forest School’s educational team, Team Fox, consisted of five teachers (T1–T5), whereas Lake School’s Team Salmon included seven PAs (PA1–PA7) and three teachers. The teachers on Team Salmon were not included in this study because of its focus on PAs.

At Forest School, the teachers on Team Fox performed all work assignments connected to the SEU, both in terms of teaching and tasks more associated with the profession of PAs. All the teachers on Team Fox were licenced teachers.

While no formal job description for the PAs was available from Lake school, it was clear that the occupational group did not perform the actual teaching. However, it was common for the PAs to be involved in one-to-one teaching with specific pupils and to provide support during lessons, which meant helping the diagnosed pupils plan and clarify their school assignments. Furthermore, the PAs had the function of mentors for the pupils, meaning that they were responsible for evaluating and planning the pupils’ academic achievements, as well as communicating with their guardians. In Swedish schools, the role of a mentor is often reserved for trained teachers; however, only one of the PAs in Team Salmon possessed a teaching degree.

The participants were approached via the principals of Forest and Lake School, who gave their approval for initiating contact with the educational teams. After the initial contact was made, I arranged separate meetings with Team Fox and Team Salmon, at which I informed the team members about the content of my study and how it would be implemented. Before the data collection began, the participating team members were informed individually about the aim of the study, the confidentiality of their information and the voluntary nature of participation. All participants provided oral consent. Ethical procedures in line with those set out by the Swedish Research Council (2017) were included during the data collection and analysis process. Thus, easily identifiable information, such as the names of individuals and locations, was made anonymous. Aliases are used for the names of the schools and educational teams in this article to protect the participants’ anonymity.

Theoretical foundation and process of analysis

Fairclough’s (2001, 2003, 2013, 2015) definition of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) inspires the theoretical framework and analysis applied in this study. CDA is a way to grasp the meaning of texts and spoken language in a certain context. Discourses are not just forms of expression; rather, discourses represent views of society and its different parts interpreted in various ways by different interpreters (Fairclough 2003). Thus, different discourses can be present in similar contexts depending on the participants’ presuppositions when they interpret, problematise and comprehend, for instance, special educational practices. This is what Fairclough (2015) refers to as members’ resources (MR), which constitute such attributes as formal education, profession and social class.

According to Fairclough (2015), MR are cognitive perceptions that affect the production, reproduction and challenge of discourses. However, since the production of discourses is part of a more comprehensive context, the interpretation of discourses needs to be analysed in relation to discursive (i.e. the local context) and social practices (i.e. extensive contextual systems, which include norms and values) (Fairclough 2001; Meyer 2001). In this article, SEUs represent discursive practices, whereas the Swedish educational system is an example of social practice. The discursive practice also operates within a neuropsychiatric paradigm (Malmqvist and Nilholm 2016; Slee 2019); that is, pupils’ school failure is explained by characteristics internal to the pupils, such as ADHD or ASD. Thus, the ‘problem’ is situated in the pupil rather than the educational environment. The neuropsychiatric paradigm constitutes external experts with a loose connection to pedagogical practices and has gained influence in the arrangement of special educational support (Harwood and McMahon 2014; Hjörne and Evaldsson 2015; Hjörne and Säljö 2013; Slee 2019; Slee and Allan 2001).

An additional key element in CDA is subject positions. Subject positions emerge from the discourse, meaning that individuals are ascribed social roles depending on the discursive practice; for instance, the teacher and pupils in a classroom have distinct subject positions (Fairclough 2015; Hall 2001). In this article, subject positions are equated to the identities of PAs, teachers and pupils. Discourses that include SEUs for pupils diagnosed with NDs make specific factors available and addable in the CDA; they allow consideration of identities, identity making and power. One particular point of interest for this study in terms of Fairclough’s (2015) definition of CDA is MR. The educational teams that were examined consisted of different occupational groups, but at the same time, the team members belonged to a similar discursive and social practice. Thus, the theoretical approach presented above makes it possible to establish a method of analysis with the potential to detect MR significance in the creation of discourses and identities in SEUs.

Twelve semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted to collect the data. The interviews, which lasted 40–75 minutes, were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim by the author. The semi-structured approach allowed me to explore certain subjects of interest for the study, and at the same time, left room for the participants to contribute their interpretations, experiences, knowledge and understandings (Galletta and Cross 2013). When collecting the data, an interview schedule was used that contained questions linked to predetermined themes; teachers and PAs were asked to talk about their roles, competence, the purpose of the SEUs, the pupils involved in the SEUs, the educational team, evaluation, development and change. The initial steps in the analysis process followed Erlingsson and Brysiewicz’s (2017) description of qualitative content analysis, meaning that the transcribed interviews were read multiple times to locate the meaning and essence of the participants’ statements. The point of departure of this step was to locate statements where the participants expressed views about the SEUs, their profession and the pupils they encountered.

The next phase in the process consisted of the creation of meaning units, represented by segments of text from the transcribed interviews. The meaning units were compressed into condensed meaning units to concentrate the contents’ meaning without losing the core of the statements. In the continuing process, the meaning units and the condensed meaning units were analysed with a CDA approach to illuminate how different identities emerged from the statements in the interviews.

To reach a higher level of abstraction, the ways in which the participants expressed themselves regarding their professions, the pupils and the SEUs were considered (Table 1). Furthermore, the analysis process aimed to illuminate how the participants described themselves and ascribed certain attributes to themselves both in accordance with their profession and as members of the educational team. The descriptions and ascriptions were important parts of the identification process of the PAs, the teachers and the pupils belonging to the SEUs. The next step consisted of bringing similar meaning units together based on their impact on the construction of identities. This approach clarified the differences and similarities in the participants’ statements and made it possible for me to locate discourses.

Table 1. Process of analysis from meaning units to the construction of discourses.

Level of abstraction Low High
Meaning units	Condensed meaning unit	Identity	Constructed discourse
‘I have long experience, and I think I have a way of thinking so (…) I understand a little about how these people and youth think’. (PA3)	Experience provides a broader understanding of diagnosed pupils’ thinking	PAs ascribe precedence to themselves in interpreting pupils thoughts The pupils are seen as a collective based on NDs	Experts/interpretative
‘The well-being of the pupils is basically what I would say is our responsibility’. (PA3)	Pupils’ well-being is more important than learning	The PAs are caretakers The pupils are reduced to a group in need of care	Caring/well-being
‘We are also good at understanding that it is we who own the problems, we who work with the pupils; only we can change the teaching. We cannot put one of their problems in their lap and expect a change without actually being willing to work amongst ourselves and change the teaching’. (T2)	Pupils’ success in school depends on the teaching strategies and willingness to change	The teachers ascribe to themselves responsibility for the success or failure of the pupils’ goal achievement	Learning/development/change
‘Pupils who come to us should not only move from school absenteeism and school failure towards success and attendance; the goal is to be able to gain so much knowledge that they can apply for upper secondary school and be able to complete upper secondary school’. (T1)	School success and learning are important goals	The pupils are capable of learning	Learning

In line with the theoretical framework, the constructed discourses were part of a context. Thus, they were not interpreted as independent phenomena; instead, they were analysed in relation to context and MR.

Results

Based on the statements from the PAs and teachers, two overarching discourses were constructed – those of the caring expert and the dedicated learner. The former was represented by Team Salmon and the latter by Team Fox. The discourses originated from the way in which the participants interpreted their professions and their views concerning pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD.

The caring expert

The discourse of the caring expert consisted of two parts; in combination, these aspects constitute the identity of the PA, and in turn, they shape the pupils’ identity.

The identity of the PA and the pupil

The caring part of the discourse became visible in the PAs’ statements when they talked about what was most important for the pupils attending the SEUs; it was also evident in how the PAs identified and interpreted their task assignments. Several of the PAs’ statements expressed reasoning about caring and the pupils’ need for safety, often in relation to NDs, which affected the identity making of the PAs.

Although schooling was identified as important, being placed in an SEU was not all about passing grades: ‘It is the school that is the main focus, of course, but for the school to work, the pupil in question must feel well’ (PA3). This kind of reasoning was common in the PAs’ statements concerning the main purpose of the SEUs:

I think by (…) not focusing on certain things—for example, that they should have passing grades when they leave the ninth grade, because it can be a very stressful thing—we can focus on making them feel good (PA1).

Several PAs expressed the same view when asked about the purpose of the SEU. While they were all concerned about the pupils’ grades, this issue was not at the forefront when it came to pupils with NDs. One PA highlighted emotional well-being when talking about the needs of diagnosed pupils: ‘You need to take care of them [the pupils] more socially’ (PA1). Well-being and the PAs acts of caring for the pupils were explicitly connected to the SEU. The PAs presented the SEU as a prerequisite for pupils’ well-being and safety; one PA commented:

The idea is that the pupils should be separated based on their need not to feel that you are too much [part of] this [the environment outside the SEU], which can, in their world, be experienced as a bit chaotic and too intrusive (PA7).

The SEU was also needed if the pupils were to develop concerning their academic achievements. The same PA continued:

They are in an environment where they feel safe (…); I think that is like the primary thing. And then the school should come in, and you should have grades and everything. That is what I think: if this first [part] works, then it will be easier to get to the other (PA7).

The caring part of the constructed discourse constituted statements from the PAs, where they interpreted their working tasks in relation to the pupils placed in the SEU. These statements strengthened the modelling of the PAs’ identity as primary caretakers when the participants from Team Salmon emphasised tasks that did not consist of teaching and learning. Relations and communication were expressed as key elements in the PAs’ job description, which became visible when the PAs used such phrases as building relations, gaining trust, close relations, getting to know and well-being. The role of PAs as relationship agents was connected to pupils’ diagnoses:

As pupil assistants, we have the task of getting to know and understand our pupils, in some sense (…). And these are pupils (…) with communication difficulties because it is a group on the autism spectrum (PA6).

The second part of the constructed discourse consisted of PAs as experts, meaning that the identity making of the PAs as a profession constituted views and statements where the PAs self-ascribed an identity as experts and interpreters. This part of the discourse was entwined with the identity of PAs as caretakers and pupils’ diagnoses. The PAs often referred to experience and self-constructed knowledge as abilities that shaped their identities. In some cases, this was described as an internal capability: ‘I have experience, and I have knowledge, and I have some kind of built-in understanding for the pupils I work with’ (PA6). One of the PAs, who had only recently been hired by the school, made the following comment: ‘The thing is that I have not worked within the school before, so I have no experience of curricula or anything’ (PA2). Still, the PA expressed views about how the teachers should teach and interact with diagnosed pupils, making statements that reinforced the image of PAs as experts not only regarding what the pupils needed but also in relation to the profession of teachers. The PA continued: ‘Teachers should have more competence, I think, more in-service training concerning these diagnoses’ and ‘sometimes (…) we also have to support the teacher in how to plan [the teaching]’ (PA2).

Views like the previous ones were not always explicit in Team Salmon, but the PAs often talked about their profession and the pupils in an interpretative manner, indicating that the PAs knew what was best for pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD and how the pupils experienced the world outside the SEU: ‘They [the pupils] somehow think the outside world is damn scary, and [they] like to stick to their own domain’ (PA7). When the PAs communicated how they believed the pupils experienced the surrounding environment, the occupational group’s interpretations were used to legitimatise the pupils’ attendance or non-attendance at certain school activities. One of the PAs referred to this as a pros and cons discussion in the educational team: ‘You work preventively because you have thought about how a certain situation can affect a pupil’ (PA5). The diagnosed pupils’ non-attendance was legitimised by the PAs as an active choice from the educational team, sometimes described in terms of energy-intensive activities. Such activities were assumed to be unfit for pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD because they lacked the energy of pupils without NDs. Consequently, in the PAs’ view, the pupils should not participate in activities that the PAs thought of as mentally demanding. PA7 summarised this as follows: ‘I think our pupils would probably feel more like, yes, we probably want to be like the others [non-diagnosed pupils]. But I do not want to be included in this [activity]; I’m not comfortable with that’ (PA7).

The identity making of the PAs, which characterised the caring expert discourse, consisted of statements from the participants where those in the occupational group appeared as interpreters and experts concerning pupils with NDs. The PAs emphasised the importance of safety and well-being for the pupils before learning, which shaped the identity of the pupils as less capable because of their diagnoses.

The dedicated learner

The discourse created by the statements from the members of Team Fox was characterised by reflection and the urge for development and change. The learning aspect of the discourse involved both the teachers as a profession and the pupils attending the SEU.

The identity of the teacher and the pupil

The teachers talked about themselves as members of a team where the notion of shared responsibility for the pupils’ success or failure was prominent:

That is the foundation, I think, that we never think that it is the pupil’s fault [of not passing grades]. We have as a basic view that it is we [the teachers] who should help this pupil (…). We have as a basic idea that they do the best they can. And I think it is extremely important that we also have a solution-focused mindset (T3).

The accountability for the progression of the pupils’ learning and knowledge acquisition was primarily a question for the team members, which was further emphasised by T1:

We believe that we are responsible for the failure or success [of the pupils], so we think that [if] we can fully accept that it is we who own the problem as educators, then we also have the greatest opportunity to create changes (T1).

The members of Team Fox emphasised that to prevent school failure, it would be necessary to scrutinise the teaching profession: ‘We are (…) critical; [we seek] to critically question our working methods and our, like, ways of working’ (T3). Another team member expressed the same view as follows: ‘We brainstorm difficulties with each other – how do we solve this?—so we really try solution-focused to find possibilities as soon as things go wrong’ (T5). One teacher described the job as a ‘dance’ in which the teachers had to follow the lead of the pupils and adapt their teaching methods in accordance with the pupils’ needs. It was all about openness to change, as well as a willingness to try, to evaluate pedagogical methods of working and to be reconciled with the idea that if things did not turn out as planned, ‘damn, you did not succeed as an educator’ (T1). Statements like those quoted above, infused with critical reflection on the teaching profession, were common among the members of Team Fox; thus, they formed a significant part of how the team members shaped their identities.

The learning aspect was closely connected to the team, and the members of Team Fox talked about this from a holistic perspective. To develop and learn as teachers and affect the pupils’ learning process in a positive direction, it was crucial to understand the educational team and the SEU as something more than merely individuals:

We must find a way where our teaching becomes effective in the best way to create successful school results. And we know that we cannot do it on our own [as individual teachers], but we in our team must always be together and leave no stone unturned to, if possible, find the best way to teach (…). We work closely as a team (T1).

One participant commented that the team was a ‘development engine’ fuelled by the pupils’ results, always in need of adjustments to keep the development process going. The importance of the team and the process of working were well known to all the team members:

We usually say that we [the team] are self-improving, that is, that we have a process when we encounter (…) a difficulty. We have, like, a method (…). Where do we stand now, where do we want to go and what should we do to get there? It feels like we are very solution-focused, all of the staff who work here and, (…) that means that we do not get stuck in problems (T2).

Another prominent aspect of the participants’ statements was inquiries regarding the pupils when they first attended the SEUs. It was important for the teachers that the pupils’ perspectives and voices were made explicit through active participation from the pupils:

We start by doing an interview (…) where the pupil herself can talk about herself, her strengths, difficulties, interests and so on, and (…) [she can tell us], what do I want, like, how should school be for me (T2).

In addition to the interviews, the teachers designed individual education plans in collaboration with the pupils; these plans had clearly stated goals in which the pupils’ learning process was emphasised. The members of Team Fox stressed the importance of continuously evaluating the education plans and revising them when needed. The teachers talked about the pupils as individuals with the potential for development and learning. The pupils’ capability for learning was not attached to NDs alone, which was expressed in such statements as ‘because we know that NDs is really not [a] static [condition]’ (T1) and ‘after all, a diagnosis is only a diagnosis’ (T4).

Another part of the dedicated learner discourse was the teachers’ focus on the pupils’ learning. For the teachers in Team Fox, it was never a question of what was most important; it was the pupils’ learning processes and goal fulfilment. A central aspect of the teachers’ reasoning was pupils’ progress in school: ‘The goal is for every pupil to reach school success’ (T4). School success was crucial for further development and the overall health of the pupils because ‘succeeding in school is central to the sense of well-being and to feeling good’ (T2). The concept of school success occurred regularly in the teachers’ reasoning and consisted of a view of the pupils as capable of learning. Although the teachers talked about achievements connected to the pupils’ efforts, it was still a responsibility for the teachers to ‘make them believe in themselves and believe that they know something that they can succeed in school’ (T4). According to the teachers, the pupils had the ability to assimilate education; in the teachers’ view, the learning process was the pathway to positive self-esteem.

The identity making of the teachers, which characterised the dedicated learner discourse, consisted of statements from the participants that emphasised the importance of learning and critical reflection as a continuum. This is a continuous process of development that constitutes the identity of the pupils as capable of reaching school success, regardless of being diagnosed with ADHD or ASD.

Discussion and conclusions

The two discourses and identities made visible in statements from the participants of Team Salmon and Team Fox were shaped in relation to MR and the team members’ understandings of their professions. The findings indicate that PAs are more prone to emphasising the importance of the diagnosed pupils’ well-being as opposed to their learning processes. Furthermore, the PAs presented themselves as spokespersons or interpreters of the pupils’ voices, thoughts and feelings. In many of the statements from the PAs, the pupils attending the SEU appeared as a collective connected by the NDs; thus, the individual voices of specific pupils became inexplicit in the PAs’ reasoning. In comparison, the members of Team Fox focused on both the learning processes for the team as a whole and the individual members’ importance for the development of practice. Throughout the statements in the interviews, the teachers emphasised critical thinking concerning their teaching methods and their pupils’ academic progress. The pupils appeared as individuals capable of learning, and their identities were not as closely connected to NDs as they were in the case of the PAs’ statements.

Via the lens of Fairclough’s (2015) model of analysis, it can be said that discourses are made visible not only through spoken language but also via MR and discursive practices. Indeed, these are crucial parts of a more comprehensive understanding of socially constructed phenomena. In this article, MR and discursive practices are important parts of the localisation of discourses, as well as in the identity making of occupational groups and pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD. Thus, discourses cannot be identified merely by their existence; rather, they must be recognised in terms of the surrounding phenomena (Fairclough 2013).

The two constructed discourses are closely connected to the occupational groups that constituted the educational teams. This factor affected the identity making of the PAs, teachers and diagnosed pupils. According to Fairclough’s (2015), MR are mental constructions that are used by the team members in ‘interpretative procedures’ to ‘generate interpretations’ (p. 155). To comprehend the two constructed discourses, an analysis involving the team members’ MR is significant in creating a more comprehensive understanding of the discourses.

The differences in the PAs’ and teachers’ MR became evident in the way the participants interpreted their roles and work assignments. As observed in previous research (Breyer, Lederer, and Gasteiger-Klicpera 2021; Butt 2016; Griffin and Blatchford 2021; Lindqvist, Östergren, and Holme 2020; Takala 2007; Webster et al. 2011), the framing of the PA profession appears vague; nevertheless, PAs are often used as a resource to handle pupils in need of special educational support. The absence of a clear definition of PAs complicates the establishment of a professional occupation in the sense of sharing a specialised knowledge base guiding actions in pedagogical practices (Stoll and Seashore Louis 2007; Talbert and McLaughlin 1994). This phenomenon is related to the PAs’ MR as a contributing factor in the identification processes that occur.

Following Fairclough’s (2015), MR are mental resources for the interpretation and understanding of specific contexts, such as the educational system to which SEUs belong. The mental resources that constitute MR are socially constructed, for instance, by education or membership in a profession. Depending on an individual’s possession of MR, according to Fairclough’s (2015), social practices are interpreted as following these MR. When it comes to PAs, the determination of the occupational group and its working assignments is not explicitly described in Swedish legislation or curriculum; furthermore, employability as a PA does not require formal education (SOU 2021). These are factors that influence PAs’ MR and their relation to and understanding of social practice (Fairclough 2001, 2015) in terms of the educational system to which they belong.

In this study, the PAs seldom referred to themselves as belonging to a team – a collective – in the way that the teachers from Team Fox did. The PAs all entered the SEU with different MR and no joint education or profession to which they could relate; instead, personal experiences and characteristics became prominent in their MR (see e.g. Butt 2018). Another influential factor regarding the PAs’ MR involved determinants from the neuropsychiatric paradigm (Malmqvist and Nilholm 2016; Slee 2019) in combination with SEUs. This paradigm frequently emerged in the PAs’ reasoning about the pupils attending the SEU, and they were often treated as a collective because of their diagnoses. The medical viewpoint of what pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD need overshadows a reflective view of special educational practices seen through an environmental and relational perspective (Harwood and McMahon 2014; Slee 2019). In this article, this became evident when the PAs ascribed to themselves the roles of experts and interpreters of the thoughts and feelings of diagnosed pupils instead of paying attention to the development of practice. The PAs’ unspecified connection to school as part of the pedagogical practice limits their MR when it comes to handling pupils needing special educational support.

Both the teachers and the PAs shape their identities and those of the pupils in relation to something, which is affected by the respective occupational groups’ MR. However, because of the unclear definition of PAs as a profession and the absence of formal pedagogical education, the PAs’ identities and roles are defined in relation to the pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD and the SEU. The discursive practice consisting of the SEU and the neuropsychiatric paradigm substantiates the identity making of both the PAs and the diagnosed pupils. The PAs become the caring experts and the pupils are viewed through their diagnoses and appear as less capable and in need of care (Edin 2022; Mackenzie 2011).

In contrast to the PAs, the teachers appear as a collective, a clearly defined profession with stated purposes – namely, to teach and take responsibility for pupils’ learning (Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Leisure-Time Centre, undefined; SFS 2010). However, in this study, not only did the teachers belong to a profession with a clearly defined occupational group, but they also showed signs of professionalism in the sense of an urge to improve and develop practice (Talbert and McLaughlin 1994); thus, the SEU constituting Team Fox bears resemblance to ‘problem-solving organisations that invent new practices for work’ (Skrtic 1995, 203). This became evident in several statements from the teachers, where the focus and purpose of the SEU were the pupils’ and the teachers’ learning processes.

As noted by Fairclough’s (2015), MR are social constructions that are ‘unequally distributed’ (p. 57), meaning that teachers have different cognitive resources compared with the PAs. The MR of the teachers provided tools to reflect on their profession from a critical perspective, which also shaped the identity of the teachers and the pupils as dedicated and capable learners. Team Fox appeared as a collective of individuals who critically reflected on their practice in a development-promoting way. The impact of the discursive practice as a determinant appears to be less significant for the teachers compared with the PAs, which means that the neuropsychiatric paradigm was not equally prominent in the identity making of the pupils because of the teachers’ MR. The teachers could problematise the teaching profession instead of personal characteristics consisting of attributes and experiences, in contrast to the PAs.

In conclusion, the implications for practice and the creation of an image in which diagnosed pupils do or do not emerge as capable individuals need to be addressed. The discourse constructed from the PAs’ statements reveals power relations characterised by what Fairclough’s (2015) refers to as an ‘unequal encounter’ (p. 73), this became visible in this study when the pupils were identified and characterised concerning their diagnoses. A relationship occurred that provided PAs with the power to interpret what was best for pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD. As noted by Slee and Allan (2001) and Slee (2019), this sort of power relation reduces the independence of diagnosed pupils and further strengthens the influence of the neuropsychiatric paradigm in SEUs. This study stresses the importance of considering MR as an explanatory factor in the creation of discourses and identity making of occupational groups and pupils diagnosed with ADHD and ASD.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Johan Edin

Johan Edin is a PhD candidate in educational science and teacher in special pedagogy at the Department of Education at Umeå University in Sweden. His research focuses on segregated special education settings designed for pupils with neurodevelopmental diagnoses, learning organisations and organisational learning.

Notes

1. In this article, the term pupil assistant is used to describe a specific occupation. This occupational group could also be labelled, for instance, as teacher assistants, teaching assistants, paraprofessionals or teacher aides.