ASD pupils in mainstream schools
Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people and the world around them (National Autistic Society, 2014). A key feature is a deficit in forming social relationships at an age-appropriate level. Recent studies of prevalence indicate a median worldwide incidence of 62/10,000 (Elsabbagh et al, 2012) with a UK prevalence of 1.1% of the population (Baird G. et al., 2006; Brugha et al 2009; Brugha et al, 2012). Increasing numbers of ASD pupils are being educated within mainstream school settings, which is a response to the inclusion policy initially set out in Excellence for All Children (DfEE, 2007). Furthermore, Humphrey and Lewis (2008) found that pupils on the autistic spectrum are at a substantially greater risk of being excluded from school compared with typically developing peers. ASD pupils are also at greater risk of peer group difficulties, for example in relation to bullying (Humphrey and Symes, 2010) and rejection / reduced acceptance (Symes and Humphrey, 2010) compared with other pupils in mainstream settings.
Typically, in mainstream schools pupils with special educational needs including ASD are supported by Teaching Assistants either as dedicated 1:1 support for an individual pupil through provision set out in a Statement of Special Educational Needs or through more general classroom support at School Action / Action Plus. Studies have shown that teachers regard the role of TAs as critical to the successful inclusion of pupils with ASD (Rose, 2001) and that TAs have a more positive attitude towards the pupils than teachers, who can report feeling tensions towards ASD pupils (Emam and Farrell, 2009). However, it is also the case that the effectiveness of TA support of this type has been questioned with some research reporting little and inconsistent impact on overall attainment scores (Howes, 2003) and with other studies reporting that the more TA support a child receives the less progress they make (Blatchford et al, 2009a; Farrell et al, 2010). There are also studies that report that increased TA contact may lead to pupils being socially isolated (Alston and Kilham, 2004; McVittie, 2005). The factors of importance that impact upon effective TA support have been identified as deployment, training and relationships with teachers (Blatchford et al, 2009a) and school factors such as inclusive school culture and teacher training (Symes and Humphrey, 2011). When TAs who supported ASD pupils in mainstream schools were interviewed, thematic analysis identified positive attitudes towards pupils with SEN, school leadership support for inclusion, collaboration and respect as components of an inclusive school culture (Symes and Humphrey, 2011). Furthermore, the TAs reported that the factors they perceived as impacting upon their ability to effectively include pupils with ASD as access to expertise, communication within school and teaching staff awareness of ASD.
Whilst these pieces of research are valuable in looking at the systems in schools that appear to be important for effective inclusion of ASD pupils it remains that there is little to tell us about how the TAs feel about their relationships with the ASD pupils they
support, particularly as these relationships are seen to be important factors in successful inclusion (Emam and Farrell, 2009). This is particularly relevant given that the role of TAs in schools is at the forefront of support for ASD pupils in mainstream schools. These studies do vary in their robustness when validity criteria are applied to them (Yardley, 2008). For example, Symes and Humphrey (2011) looked at TA experiences supporting ASD pupils in 4 secondary schools and used thematic analysis to analyse the data obtained. This analysis didn’t recognise that some TAs worked with one pupil at a time whilst others worked with more than one pupil; some had prior experience of working with ASD pupils whilst others had none and whilst most were employed by the school others came via an outside agency. The use of thematic analysis in this research is certainly appropriate but the analysis focused mostly at the visible / obvious level and lacked interpretation of meaning. There is also the concern in this research that the interview format was very narrow in restricting participants to discussing issues relating to deployment, training and teacher relationships and that a strong hypothesis had already been generated before the interviews took place, which potentially narrowed the
usefulness of the research. That said the research did show a degree of commitment and rigour through the analysis of the data and showed a clear train of argument from the data to the conclusions. The research from Blatchford et al (2009a), as another example, sought to look at the effect of support staff on pupil engagement and individual attention using a rather complex analysis of students and TAs’ behaviour in blocks of 10-second intervals. The selection of participants and the quantitative analysis of the data are problematic as there are many variables that could have affected the outcome of these observations.
IPA is a qualitative approach concerned with analysing personal experiences, the
meaning of experience to participants and how participants make sense of that experience (Smith, 2011). It has its roots in phenomenological psychology and hermeneutics and seeks to try and get as close as is possible to the direct experiences of participants. Smith (2011) conducted a review of 293 IPA studies noting that the largest area of research covered within IPA was illness experience closely followed by psychological distress and experience of carers. Of the 51 papers Smith considered for final review 27% were considered Good, 55% Acceptable and 18% Unacceptable. This indicates the wide variation in quality of IPA research but this review took place only from 1996 to 2008 and so is limited in that respect, especially as the number of IPA research papers published has been increasing each year since 1996 (Smith, 2011)
IPA has been used to research areas within education more recently than 2008 and, in relation to ASD, has been used to look at the experiences of ASD pupils themselves. Hill (2014) looked at the experiences of 6 ASD pupils in two mainstream secondary schools and noted that the themes that emerged for the group were sanctuary, anxiety and young people as active agents. Petalas et al (2013) looked at the sibling relationships of 12 adolescents with ASD and noted that the overwhelming sense from participants was of typical sibling relationships. Humphrey and Lewis (2008) looked at the experiences of 20 pupils with Asperger Syndrome from 4 secondary schools and noted that a central theme was how participants constructed their understanding of what their AS meant to them, which was often characterized by negative perceptions of their differences, such as being `retarded' or having a `bad brain'. Whilst these pieces of research throw valuable light onto how ASD pupils perceive themselves and their ASD, there remains a singular lack of research into how TAs perceive their role in working with ASD pupils and the
is with pupils with ASD in secondary schools and little on the views of primary aged ASD pupils. Furthermore, there is also a variation in robustness of these studies as Smith (2011) noted in his review of IPA research. For example, Hill (2014) uses IPA to study the experiences of ASD youngsters by getting them to take photos of aspects of school life that was important to them and using these as discussion cues. This is an unusual way to use IPA especially as each participant was met on 4 occasions. Given that the data analysis focuses then on themes it is questionable as to whether this is actually an IPA study at all but rather a thematic analysis. In the Humphrey and Lewis study (2008) IPA is used with 20 participants, which is very large sample for an IPA study and dilutes the detail of the individual experiences in the process.