Theme Six: School’s Response to Pupils’ SEN .1 Allocation of Resources .1 Allocation of Resources

Having examined pupils‟ SEN in the previous theme, this one will now discuss the school‟s response to them and others in general. In every organisation the distribution of resources (whether adequate or limited) is guided by an underlying principle whether conscious or unconscious. Rosenbusch (1997, as cited in Huber, 2004, p. 674) posits that leader should strive to be “more resource-oriented than deficiency-oriented”. A close examination on the interview extracts (particularly those used in Themes Two and Six) will reveal that administrators were of a deficiency-oriented approach. They discussed the inadequacy of resources such as the attrition of special needs teachers and as such they concluded that the resources are not available to meet the SEN of pupils.

However, in keeping with the suggested a resource-oriented perspective the possibility exists that the resources available (albeit limited) could be used in a more efficient and goal-directed manner. Leadership‟s thinking should be, „how can the school creatively use the available resources to meet pupils learning in general and SEN in particular?‟ In

148

the case of MMPS it was the academically more able pupils which were provided for at the expense of those who had SEN.

In a research carried out Wood and Olivier (2008, p.151) in Motherwell, South Africa in which they addressed teachers working in close collaboration with the community in an attempt to raise health standards in the contextual features paralleled to a large extent features in Jamaica disadvantaged communities. It was marked by poverty and unemployment. They state that

feelings of helplessness and hopelessness among teachers at their inability to cope with and overcome what they perceive as insurmountable problems have contributed to low motivation, lack of job satisfaction, low levels of commitment and weak self-efficacy beliefs.

In Jamaican primary schools coupled with the shift system, economic constraints frequently manifested in adequate resources, the question may be asked about „what could be the composite outcome of the school environment in terms of its impact on those who teach and learn in it?‟ It is possible that teachers may feel overwhelmed, unequipped, feeling hopeless and helpless to overcome these challenges which may have manifested in low teacher efficacy. Efficacy amongst teachers will be addressed in greater details in Theme Seven.

5.2.6.2 Deployment of Teaching Staff

There was a pronounced presence of positive discrimination towards high ability classes with regards the deployment of teaching staff at MMPS. As was mentioned before the school has a distinctive feature in terms of having suitably qualified teaching staff.

However, with specific reference to those who felt competent to teach pupils with SEN, several teachers did not able to cope with this challenge. This was confirmed by Administrator 1who stated that “some teachers are [were] below average and because of the large numbers of pupils with SEN it has affect[ed] the overall performance of the school”. On close examination of this statement it will reveal that the administrator was concerned about some teachers‟ inability to effectively teach pupils with SEN and its impact.

On several occasions the researcher visiting low ability classes which were taught by teachers who stated that they would prefer not to be teaching those classes and admitted that they were out of their depth in terms of their professional competence. For example, in the class 3X*, in which there were pupils with severe reading difficulties and very challenging behaviours and in keeping with the trend in the school, this class

149

comprised of mainly boys. The teacher vented her frustrations verbally to the researcher, stating that nothing in her teacher training nor experience equipped her to cope with the demands of the class she had on a daily basis. In an Integrated Science lesson with an overall topic of „Healthy Body‟ and with a subtopic of „Go, Grow and Glow Foods‟; outlined below is an example of differences in teaching abilities of teachers who were teaching the same topic:

1. Stream D (pupils with lowest ability)

The teacher presented the difference between „Go, Grow and Glow‟ foods. After which, pupils were instructed to draw examples of „Glow‟ foods. Not surprising the majority of them found it really difficult, consequently they could not do the task.

2. Stream C (pupils with average or just below average ability)

Similar to the teacher stream D above, the lesson content was presented. However, this teacher had pictures of different foods (from the „Grow‟ category) and pupils were asked to identify them as food from animals and those which were not. The pupils were then asked to paste the pictures of the foods in the respective columns on the chalkboard. Pupils were later asked to draw foods from the „Grow‟ category in the books. This, the majority were able to do.

3. Stream A (pupils with highest ability)

Like the other teachers, lesson content was presented. However, this teacher had examples of actual foods from all three each categories. This class was given more challenging task which the majority was able to do.

This Integrated Science lesson provided a classic example of teacher‟ abilities on display. The D stream class which needed the most scaffolding for their learning did not receive any. The teacher was asking of them to process (for some of them) abstract concepts of foods and to be able to draw pictures from a specific food group. Pupils‟ inability to do the task did not come as a surprise. The teacher from stream C had pupil looking at, handling pictures and actively manipulating them which made learning more interesting and more lasting because it engaged multiple senses. It was the stream with the most capable pupils (A) which got direct purposeful experience of having the actual foods themselves and experiencing them.

Although there was a marked shortage of resources at MMPS, in some instances the absence of relevant resources may be a case of teachers not utilising existing

150

ones. Some of the SEN of pupils may be aggravated by what can be called „teaching disability‟, it is a teacher issue. Sometimes of the debilitating effects of pupils‟ SEN is further compounded by this. The root of the problem may be inferior teacher training and or practise. Excellent teaching strategies for pupils with SEN are also good practice for the general pupil population.

5.2.6.3 Deployment of Teachers’ Assistants

The fragmented use of TAs in MMPS created tensions, possibly areas of conflicts and most importantly an inefficient use of the resource. Examine the stark disparity between TAs‟ understandings of their remit.

Basically what I do here is help with the slow students, the students will come in and can't read and write. But what I mostly do, I help out but if a teacher is not here I take the entire grade… this term I have not spent much time with the slower ones but I still accomplish[ed] something… TA1

Contrast this job description as offered by TA2:

Whenever a teacher does not come to school I sit in with the class but I am on a roster. D stream is normally supported on a Friday. Occasionally when another grade needs help too, I assist. I mark books and if a teacher is not here I teach.

If a teacher is there, I will mark the books.

Whereas both TAs function in the capacity of „substitute teacher‟ in the absence of regular teachers, there is a significant difference in their operations. It would appears that the overarching responsibility for TA1 is helping to meet the learning needs of pupils with deemed as being slow, that is, having SEN. Notwithstanding, it was admitted that the primary responsibility was sidelined in order to carry out the more secondary function of teaching whole classes in teachers‟ absences. On the other hand, in the case of TA2, it seems as if the focus was on helping class teachers with their work load with activities such as marking books. It is worth noting that D stream was scheduled for Friday on the roster of TA2. This may be interpreted as a relegation of priority as it relates to the meeting the SEN of pupils. As was previously highlighted, D streams are those pupils that the school deems as having SEN; the stream that needs the most educational support based on their SEN is on the roster on Fridays, the end of the school week. It is worth noting that the reading specialist support was scheduled to give support to two low ability classes on a Friday too. As was previously mentioned Friday is the shortest school day at MMPS (by half an hour to facilitate teacher planning). In addition, it also tended to have the most disruptions to normal teaching schedules on

151

Fridays thus being frequently used as „special days‟ according to Smith (2000).

Although these special activities are necessary in pupils‟ education, they still represent essentially a reduction of the learning of curriculum contents. This is important especially in light in light of the fact that there was no differentiation in tests and examinations for the lower streams. In essence, the length of the school day for Fridays and its propensity to being chosen as the day for celebrations, competitions and other such school activities, allocating Friday to lower ability classes to receive extra support is not the giving the maximum support to learners with SEN. Not only is there a significant disparity between TAs understanding of their roles, but even administrators‟

description of the role does not dovetail with the TAs. Administrator 1 described the role of a TA as being “very secondary role to help the teacher to take up lunch order[s], supervise children and where they are bright [intellectually astute] they can help mark books”. He also stated that each of the TAs in terms of qualification has at least two subjects and that he encourages and recommends them to go to teachers college. However, recommending TAs to go to teachers‟ college could be interpreted as seeing the role of TAs as a „pit stop‟ on route to becoming a teacher. His description of their role being “very secondary” may be a reflection of mindset of seeing the TAs‟ role as transitory. Qualified and well trained TAs could add much value as part of the educational provision at the school targeting pupils with SEN. Being qualified and trained should not be viewed as a route to what is deemed to be a higher position of being a teacher as was implied by Administrator 1, rather a critical job on its own right.

Unlike the strong emphasis on meeting the SEN of pupils by TA1, Administrator 1 did not mention the use of TAs as a strategy of meeting the SEN of pupils. Teachers too do not seem to have a common understanding of the function of TAs. Below is Miss Jones‟* paraphrased view on the function of TAs.

Although she is grateful for the support of TA she finds TA to be more work than help. She found them annoying and do not conduct themselves well in class and can be a source of distraction with the students. She preferred to mark her own students‟ books so she can make comments. Notably, she felt that they should not be left unsupervised alone with pupils. (Teacher)

This was in direct contrast to Mr Bell‟s* view.

23 in class it would still be good if there was a teacher aid. The needs vary so it would be helpful if an assistant teacher was provided. The TAs are not paid [by the MOE] and not trained. Some form of informal training [is necessary]. It not about helping me to mark books and help with class control, rather it‟s helping the learning of pupils. (Teacher)

152

Notably, none of the teachers was keen in having TAs mark pupils‟ books. From the deliberation of Mr Bell* it would appear that he is of understanding that the role of a TA is essentially to promote the learning of pupils. Interestingly, this understanding is juxtaposed to TA2‟s understanding of her own role. Teacher 1 perceives the presence of TA in her classroom as increasing her workload rather than being of much help. This lack of clarity with regards to the role of TAs is not uncommon has been have highlighted by some research (Russel et al, 2005). This possibly could cause tension and conflict as teachers and TAs do not share a common understanding of the role of TAs.

Having examined the deployment of teachers and TAS in MMPS, the intervention strategies used to meet the SEN of pupils will be explained in the upcoming sub-theme.

5.2.6.4 Special Educational Need Intervention Strategies

Maple Meadows Primary School employs a plethora of strategies in its quest to address the SEN of its pupil population as is represented in Figure 5.2. In the ensuing discussion special emphasis will be placed on the strategy of streaming and other forms of pupil grouping with SEN since it is the most universal and the most ingrained in the life of the school.

Figure 5.2: SEN Intervention Strategies used in MMPS Grouping of Pupils with SEN

1. Low Ability Streams