No help wanted
EDUCATION DAVID ROGERS
Up to now the debate on the use of teachtng assistants has been notable for spotlighting the worst features of our educational way of life more than the specific issues involved. The sheer built-in conservative reaction to new ideas from teachers; the delight in status; restrictive practices safeguarded by the unions.; official kite-flying; and woolly national reports. These are the things that have made the papers, and if proof is needed that the argument has been degrading to all concerned, all that must be done is to look back over the last five years and see how suggested titles for teaching assistants have fallen into disrepute—ancillary helpers, teaching auxiliaries, school assistants, general assistants, teaching aides. And on Tuesday, to no one's surprise, the teachers' union reaffirmed its opposition to their use for 'teaching duties.' In the early 1960s it was almost inevitable that the unions would react unfavourably to Sir David Eccles's idea of employing auxiliaries: partly because of the nature of the unions, but also because of the circumstances of the time. Following Selwyn Lloyd's squeeze which had cut back a salary increase to teachers by l2-I per cent (let it be remembered they still got an extra £42 million), there was a tremendous resentment against the Conservative govern- ment. At that time, too, great publicity was being given to the severe shortage of teachers, and to the desperate measures needed if we were ever to attract enough to keep pace with the rising birth rate, cut the size of classes, raise the
school-leaving age, and cope with the growing sixth forms. These facts 'combined had led to a feeling from the teaching profession of no con- fidence in the Government and a suspicion that the suggestion to employ auxiliaries was a panic measure to help overcome the teacher shortage, rather than a carefully-thought-out plan to aid the individual teacher.
But a Labour government has also had no joy in selling this idea to the unions. In an article (unsigned) in The Teacher—the NUT'S newspaper—eight months after the Labour government came to office, fifty questions were posed about the possible use of assistants. These included the question as to whether an auxiliary would be allowed to let a child leave the room, and also asked, 'Will auxiliaries have their own staff room? If not, will not this inhibit the staff and its informal discussions, very seriously?' The writer was worried lest an auxiliaries' union would spring up to contradict the pro- nouncements of the NUT. More recently, the NUT has said, 'In so far as the Plowden proposals suggest that the so-called teaching aides can take part in the process of teaching, we shall of course oppose them vigorously.'
There are historical reasons why the NUT takes this line. Teachers worry about the status of the profession, which could be diluted if assistants with less than the present qualifica- tions took charge of classes; there is the old- fashioned antagonism against the inspectorate, which has led to a distrust of having another adult in the classroom; the purity of the teacher- class relationship might be broken by the presence of an assistant who could gain a better response than the teacher from the form.
But the discussions have been clouded by ignorance as well as prejudice. What exactly could auxiliaries do if they took part in teach- ing? In all parts of the country they could do what some auxiliaries already do in some areas. They could act as supervisors and helpers with school milk and school dinners. With small children they could help in tying shoe-laces and blowing noses. In the secondary schools auxiliaries can act as laboratory technicians, help in the preparation of visual aids, and help with material in the art and craft departments. There :s also a need for more secretarial assis- tance. But in the performance of all these jobs no actual teaching time would be saved. At the moment a teacher can't take a lesson off to build a model of a mediaeval castle. He either makes it in his spare time or goes without. By having an assistant to make it for him he may become a better teacher, but he won't be able to teach more pupils. This is the attitude that the Crowther Report took, when they said in paragraph 650 that: 'Teachers' assistants are not really a possibility.'
If assistants are used solely in the ways described above there is obviously no need for them to have a course of teacher training. How- ever, Plowden has now suggested that there should be training schemes for teaching aides. Although it is comparatively easy to define the duties of a non-teaching assistant, it is slightly harder to be clear about the work of a teaching assistant. If the scope of their work could be defined more exactly, it is possible that union opposition could be overcome, and the support of a lot of teachers actually gained. Writing in a recent letter to the Guardian, Dr D. Ross Chestermann, the Warden of Goldsmith's Col- lege, says, 'One wonders how many of those Who join this rather bitter opposition have ever seen a teaching aide in action?' He went on to
describe an experimental scheme that he saw in operation in North Carolina: 'The class of thirty seven-year-olds was read- ing and writing . . . in three groups. One group was in direct charge of the teacher, who with the help of games and cards and personal questioning made excellent progress which would have been impossible with a class of thirty. The second group worked with a tape- recorder, each child having earphones. The third group were doing individual work in writing. The second and third groups needed help from time to time and this was given effectively and unobtrusively by a teaching aide. . . . I felt that the teacher gained in dig- nity and stature by being assisted in this way.'
A teaching aide allows a teacher to work with small groups, surely one of the most de- sirable educational aspirations. And, as Ches- termann points out, this was in a largely 'formal' classroom situation. Aides would be of even more value with imaginative use. This is of particular importance now, as, in the better schools, the barriers between different subjects, and between school and after-school activities, are being broken down.
It is an ironic if typical comment on life in Britain today that the one group of people who would most benefit from the use of teaching assistants (of all types)—the teachers—are the very people whose unions seem utterly opposed to the introduction of aides. Faced with this attitude from the teachers' official spokesmen, Mr Crosland should consider appealing over their heads; he may well find a ready response from those teachers more interested in their class than their status.
Previous page
