2.1 Do traditional classrooms constrain collaboration?

Discussion

The teaching assistants (often abbreviated to TAs) felt that they knew the students well and were sensitive to their needs as well as their desire for privacy. Generally, they recognised that collaboration and communication depended upon their relationship with each teacher in each class. However, they had little or no sight of lesson plans, experienced communication ‘on the hoof’ and felt that they had to initiate discussions with the teachers. Reflecting the limited differentiation by teachers, and a sense that the TA’s standard of inclusive practice was not being met by teachers, TAs had a sense of being a go-between, echoing a general separation between the Mainstream space and the additional support space. This did not describe a collaborative practice. Rather it was a hierarchical relationship, based on convenience. It was a role in which people did not feel managed or organised, where they felt aware of being undervalued by the system, powerless and not fully prepared. This echoes findings by Salter et al., (2017) who looked at the learning experiences of Deaf students in mainstream secondary classrooms, from teaching assistants’ perspectives. They concluded that a lack of collaboration (particularly teacher engagement with teaching assistants, specialist teachers and students) meant that teachers had incorrect expectations of Deaf learners. They also had misplaced understandings of the challenges they face and of the opportunities to resolve those challenges.

If the aim is to lead the development of a collective response to collective learning challenges, then it makes sense to do so within a collaborative framework. However, it would seem to be more complicated than just wanting to do things together or having structures and processes in place to allow this to happen. In Italy, for example there are class councils, plans for the class and time for collaboration within the contracts of teachers. There are also simple, formal agreements between services, yet in the study undertaken by the author of this course (Rix et al., 2013b) one head teacher still stated that only 20 to 30 per cent of teachers plan and teach in the appropriately collaborative manner. Another head said that 50 to 60 per cent struggle with collaboration. Consequently, even though the organisation of special educational training is very different between Italy and England, both countries evidence the practices suggested by the TAs in Lehane’s study. In both countries support is frequently provided in isolation, without collaboration with the class teacher. Consequently, the practitioners experience unclear and inequitable status in the class and in the organisation of the school (Devecchi et al., 2012). In both countries, the role of this additional adult reinforced the class teacher’s view that certain children require specialist knowledge which they did not have access to. Consequently, the additional adult is not an equal collaborator but the deliverer of an individualised or small group support package separated from the collective learning context. In such a situation, it is very hard for both parties to play a leading role since a key potential collaborator does not recognise the value of the other.