“Cooling the mark out”: experienced teaching assistants’ perceptions of their work in the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream secondary schools

Abstract

Experienced teaching assistants’ (TAs’) perceptions and constructions of their work in the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) within mainstream secondary schools are the focus of this study. In a field where much research has focussed on the technicist (TA characteristics and deployment), exploration of “inclusion” and of power relationships is prioritised. Elements of critical discourse analysis (CDA) are used to examine the words of TAs talking about their work. A simple CDA framework was produced, based on the work of others, piloted, and then used to analyse interview data from eight TAs who have extensive experience and degree qualifications. TAs report prioritising discretion, even imperceptibility, in class as they actively stay “under the radar” of teachers and schools. A divide within the mainstream schools between “the mainstream” and SEN resourced “base” seems apparent to the TAs, whether the support base is geographically separated or not. “Inclusion” is actively sought, for example through advocacy, alternative provision and energetic deployment of professional strategies. Insights from the work of Goffman are deployed in the analysis of the TAs’ perceptions in order to contribute theoretical imagination to consider why the limitations in TA practice (reported within this study and within the wider literature) may occur. A degree of emotional labour is indicated but Goffman’s work on managing spoiled identity, stigma and “cooling” is of interest in offering possible explanations for the TAs’ experiences.

Keywords:

• teaching assistants
• secondary
• inclusion
• Goffman

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. While some schools are returning to the use of the term “Learning Support Assistant”, the term TA is used here since it is used in the SEN D Code of Practice (DfE, DoH 2014) and was the preferred official term when this research was carried out. The acronym “SEN” is used for consistency throughout (except in quotation) rather than “SEN D”.

2. Since the work of TAs (Bach, Kessler, and Heron 2006) and practice in relation to SEN provision in England generally, is extremely variable (Alexander 2010, 134, 135), a representative sample would in any case, be elusive for conceptual and practical reasons in small-scale research.

3. In Rieser’s terms, possibly “medical model 2”, medical model 1 describing explicit segregation, model 2 incorporating support to function normally, dependent on type and severity of impairment (2012, 166).