Mathematics Education Research Journal, VolA, No.2, 1992.

SUPPORT TEACHERS AND SECONDARY MATHEMATICSTEACHING IN NEW SOUTH WALES}

Bob Perry and Joan Mason, University of Western Sydney

This paper reports on the initial study of a suite of researchprojects dealing with the role and effectiveness of supportteachers (learning difficulties) in se.condary schoolmathematics teaching within an outer metropolitan region ofSydney. The major objectives of the suite ofprojects were toassess the level of credibility which support teachers (learningdifficulties) have in faculties that are outside their particulararea of initial teacher education, and to ascertain the level ofcongruence existing between the expectations and perceptionsof the credibility and effectiveness of support teachers(learning difficulties) in secondary mathematics teaching heldby mathematics teachers, faculty heads, support teachers(learning difficulties) and school executive. In particular, thisreport considers the data arising from mathematics teachersand support teachers (learning difficulties). Significantdifferences concerning the respective roles and abilities ofmathematics teachers and support teachers (learningdifficulties) were found between the two groups of teachers.In particular, differences between the two groups on mattersof the mathematics teachers' competency in providing forchildren with learning difficulties in mathematics and theimportance of co-operation between mathematics teachers andsupport teachers (learning difficulties) were highlighted.

In 1987, the NSW Department of Education published the policydocument 'The Education of Children with Learning Difficulties fromPre-School to Year 12' which redefined the role of the remedial orresource teacher from one who works separately with a special orwithdrawal group of children to a support teacher (learrringdifficulties'fwho works in partnership with classroom teachers and acts as a changeagent in their ever developing role. The partnership role is broader,boundaries are less clear and new sets of skills are needed. The task nowincludes offering advice and assistance, sharing ideas and expertise,developing strategies for assessment and monitoring of progress within the

24 Perry and Mason

context of the school's curriculum and promoting cooperation with otheragencies. The premise on which the policy is based is that children withlearning difficulties can learn more effectively in mainstream classroomssupported by another teacher who possesses these skilis.

The support teacher in a seëóndary school is expected, according tothe policy, to offer support to teachers across a number of curriculumareas. However, in many cases, this does not appear to happen.Commonly, the support teacher works with teachers in the areas withliterary emphases such as English and history and only rarely with teachersof mathematics. In 1989, the Director of the Metropolitan South WestRegion of the Department of Education perceived this situation as aproblem and asked the School of Education and Language Studies at theUniversity of Western Sydney, Macarthur to investigate the utilization ofsupport teachers in the teaching of secondary mathematics.

I:.

In the secondary schools of New South Wales, support teachers arerequired to work within the policy on the education of children withlearning difficulties (NSW Department of Education, 1987).Implementation of this policy, as with similar policies in New Zealand,United States of America and Britain, has given rise to the expectationamong other teachers that the support teacher should be a "super teacher"one who is knowledgeable about the needs of individual students withleaming difficulties and also about the content of the various curricula inthe school's academic program (Friend & McNutt, 1984, 1987). Thenature of the support teacher's role as a change agent and the numerousrequirements in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes are clearlysummarised in Maxwell (1991).

While only a minute proportion of studies have involved secondarymathematics classes specifically, there are two issues canvassed which arerelated to the culture of teaching and which affect the implementation ofthe support teacher's role in assisting children with learning difficultieswithin the secondary mathematics classroom. These issues are therelationships between teachers, and curricula.

Relationships Between TeachersThe success of initiatives designed to support students with learning

difficulties in mainstream classrooms is affected by the relationshipsbetween teachers. A critical element is the extent to which the seniorexecutive of the school takes a decisive lead and lends strong support to theinitiatives. Another is whether the classroom teachers have the will tomake the initiative work. Underlying both of these, and most important, isthe soundness of the professional and personal relationships that existbetween the support teacher and classroom teachers (Bines, 1986).

Support Teachers 25

It has been found that relationships between teachers in NSWsecondary schools are affected by an apparent reluctance on the part ofmany teachers to request help from or offer guidance to other teachers.This 'norm of non-interference' appears to have grown in the presentsecondary school system with its large student populations, ' egg-crate'architecture and teaching schedules which encourage teachers to work inisolation. This leads to a minimisation of opportunities to engage in sharedproblem solving or collaboration, even within faculties. A number ofresearchers (Lortie, 1975; Little, 1982; Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986;Saranson, 1982) have found that there appears to be a norm against askingfor assistance in the classroom and a complementary norm whichdiscourages a teacher from suggesting possible altematives to a peer.

CurriculaIt is within the context of the 'norm of non-interference' that the

issue of curricula should be considered as it affects both the subject teacherand the support teacher in their efforts to assist students who areexperiencing learning difficulties in mathematics. Secondary schoolmathematics teachers have encountered difficulties in developingappropriate strategies for implementing the secondary mathematicssyllabuses in classes with a wide range of student abilities (Lovitt &Clarke, 1987). Studies by O'Reilly (1975), Haladyna, Shaughnessy &Shaughnessy (1983) and Fraser (1986) provide convincing support for thepositive links between the environment of the mathematics classroom andstudent learning outcomes beyond those attributable to studentcharacteristics such as pretest performance or general ability. Tobin andFraser (1988) highlighted problems faced by secondary schoolmathematics and science teachers in Western Australia when they did nothave the necessary pedagogical knowledge to establish a classroomenvironment conducive to learning for all students in their classes. Aswell, these teachers found it difficult to use alternative teaching approacheswhen endeavouring to teach classes which included students with learningdifficulties. Questions relating to whether mathematics teachers would beprepared to invite the assistance of support teachers or whether supportteachers feit equipped to assist were not canvassed in any of these studies.

The effect of support teachers upon the development and extensionof teachers' skilis in meeting the needs of students with a wide range ofabilities was discussed in the ILEA Fish Committee Report (1985) whichdealt with in-class support for students with learning difficulties. The FishReport warned that where support teachers were appointed to schoolsthere was a danger that some subject specialiste - may assume that suchstudents are no longer their responsibility and they do not see any need tomodify their teaching procedures to cater for them. It was suggested thatif there were measures to review and develop the curriculum in eachsubject area with the class teacher and support teacher working together ona team-teaching basis, the support teacher would then be in a position to

26 Perry and Mason

tackle curricular issues and develop strategies appropriate to the group as awhole and not fust the students with leaming difficulties. If supportteachers could work with classroom teachers in this way, they could assistthem in developing their confidence and skills in meetingall the learningneeds in their classes.

The Present Study

There are issues arising from the studies reviewed which appear tohave been overlooked in the literature so far. The first is the level ofcredibility which support teachers have in faculties which are outside theirparticular area of teacher training. There is evidence that the largemajority of support teachers in secondary schools in New South Wales aredrawn from the ranks of primary school teachers or secondary Englishteachers and, therefore, are assumed to have little knowledge about thesecondary mathematics syllabus and teaching methods. Another issuewhich does not leem to have been examined is the level of congruenceexisting between the expectations and perceptions of the effectiveness ofsupport teachers in secondary mathematics teaching which are held bymathematics teachers, support teachers and school executives.

The first study within the suite was designed to provide informationon the perceived role and effectiveness of support teachers as seen by thesupport teachers themselves, mathematics teachers, executive in themathematics and English faculties and the school executive. This paperreports only on the data derived from support teachers and mathematicsteachers.

There were two main data gathering procedures used in 'this study:case study interviews and a survey questionnaire.

Case StudiesA series of interviews was held in four secondary schools within the

Metropolitan South West Region of Sydney. The four schools represent across-section of those within the Region:a) a large single-sex school,b) a small co-educational school,c) a large school with a high proportion of its students coming from a

non-English speaking background,d) a school with both a comprehensive and a selective intake.

At each of these schools, three categories of staff were interviewed:a) the Principal (or Deputy Principal),b) the support teacher,c) the Head of the mathematics faculty.

Support Teachers 27

Topics discussed included:a) the role of the support teacher in the school,b) the practices of the support teacher in providing support,c) the nature of the training of the support teacher,d) the relationship between the support teacher and the mathematics

faculty,e) the level of support given to the support teacher by the executive,f) the level of credibility of the support teacher with the mathematics

faculty,g) perceptions of leaming and teaching,h) the physical location of the support teacher within the school.

Survey QuestionnaireThe questionnaire was designel from information gathered in the

case studies and the literature review. Its aim was to gather opinions aboutaspects of the support teacher role from the following staff in each of the47 secondary schools within the Metropolitan South West Region:a) the Principal or Deputy Principal,b) the Head of the Mathematics faculty,c) the Head of the English faculty,d) a mathematics teacher other than the Head Teacher,e) the support teacher (leaming difficulties).

Part 1 of the questionnaire dealt with general information about therespondents and Part 2 employed a technique which was used by Collinsand Hughes (1979) in which respondents are asked to rate both importanceand achievement of expectations. The twenty statements of expectationsfocussed on the perceptions of the role of the support teacher and themathematics teacher in relation to the topics discussed in the case studies.Responses, on a five-point Likert scale (0 to 4) were given to:a) how important an expectation should be for the respondent's school,b) how well the expectation had been achieved within the respondent's

school.The data was used to produce a discrepancy rating giving a measure

of satisfaction with the level of achievement for each of the expectations byeach group of teachers. This rating was calculated for each item bysubtracting the mean of the achievement ratings from the mean of theimportance ratings. The discrepancy rating on any item therefore had apotential range of -4 to +4, with zero indicating that the group sawachievement and importance on par with each other. However, indiscussing these discrepancy ratings, it must be remembered that they needto be considered in combination with the importance ratings in order todistinguish between, for example, an item which has high importance andhigh achievement and an item which has low importance and lowachievement, both of which will result in a discrepancy rating near zero.

28 Perry and Mason

Results

All 47 secondary schools in the Region were surveyed. Not allschools have a support teacher (learning difficulties) but, based on thisnumber of schools, the overall response rate to the survey, from the twocategories of teacher which are the subject of this paper, was:

Support teacher (learning difficulties) 31 66%Mathematics teacher 27 57%The general data gathered in Part 1 of the questionnaire shows that

the groups of support teachers and mathematics teachers differ quitemarkedly in a number of aspects_ The support teachers tend to be moreexperienced than the mathematics teachers: 42% have been teaching formore than fifteen years compared to only 11 % of the mathematicsteachers. Fifty-nine percent of the mathematics teachers have taught inonly one school while only 19% of the support teachers are in thiscategory. Of course, the length of teaching experience has an impact onthis variable. As well, the support téachers have generally been at theirpresent school for less time than the mathematics teachers; 52% ofmathematics teachers for at most three years against 81% for the supportteachers. All of this would suggest that the support teachers tend to movearound the schools much more than mathematics teachers.

Not surprisingly, the mathematics teachers are mostly the product ofthe traditional Bachelor / Dip Ed initial teacher education courses (56%).But it is worth noting that 22% of them were initially trained as primaryteachers. Of the support teachers, only 35% were initially trained in aBachelor / Dip Ed fashion while 32% initially trained as primary teachers.In terms of highest qualifications, four support teachers have progressed toMasters degrees while there are no masters degrees among the mathematicsteachers. The relative youth of the mathematics teachers may be part ofthe reason for this.

It is interesting to note that, while English is the most popular KeyLearning Area for the support teachers (52%), there is no mortgage on therole by the English faculty, as was suggested in the case studies. Therelatively large number of initially trained mathematics teachers (23%)among the support teachers suggests that the impression arising from thecase studies that there is a lack of mathematics teaching expertise amongsupport teachers is an over generalisation.

Ranking of ImportancePart 2 of the questionnaire provided data on the importance and

achievement of certain expectations of teachers in secondary mathematicsclasses. Scores of between 0 and 4 were given on each scale by both sets ofteachers. The twenty expectations are listed in Appendix 1. Forconvenience of discussion, the expectations have been categorised intothree groups - mathematics teacher competency, support teacher

Support Teachers 29

competency and the support teacher role in cooperation with themathematics teacher.

Table 1 presents a summary of the results of ANOVAs ofdifferences in the level of importance given to each expectation by the twogroups of teachers. Analyses revealed significant differences between thegroups' ratings in ten of the twenty items with another two of the itemstending towards significance at the 0.05 level.

The eitent of the significant differences between the responses frommathematics teachers and support teachers would suggest that, as groups,they view quite differently the ways in which children with learningdifficulties in mathematics might be helped. Of particular significance arethe differences in perception seen in the two items dealing with theintegration or segregation of these children (items 5 and 14). These arejust two of the six items concerning cooperation between the supportteacher and the mathematics teachers. In five of these six items thesupport teachers gave higher ratings than the mathematics teachers. Thesixth (item 14) displayed the most significant difference between thegroups, reinforcing the findings of the case studies and highlighting amajor constraint on cooperation between them.

Four of the items displaying statistically significant differences inteacher responses (and one of those tending to such significance) related tothe importance of mathematics teachers having pedagogical skills whichenable theet to provide for the needs of children with learning difficultiesin their classrooms. In each of these items, the support teachers rated theimportance of such pedagogical skills higher than did the mathematicsteachers. These results were foreshadowed during the case studyinterviews where there was a perception among all those teachersinterviewed that support teachers frequently hold different beliefs abouthow students learn from those held by mathematics teachers. There was afeeling that English teaching, the background of most of the supportteachers interviewed, is more liberal and progressive than mathematicsteaching. There appear to be differences in terms of beliefs about thevalue of graded classes, examinations, the construction of knowledge andskills by students, sequencing of content, formality and the level of child-centredness of lessons. Mathematics teachers are perceived to be isolated,working in a structured environment where independent thinking isrestricted, the curriculum is very much defined and the processas can beregimented. They are seen as being "traditional" in their approach. Ofcourse, the potential for conflict arises from the fact that one groep seesthese factors as advantageous to students' learning while the other seesthem as quite disadvantageous.

In the final item in which a significant difference between theresponses of the two groups of teachers was found, the support teachersrated the importance of their having training in modern techniques forteaching mathematics higher than the mathematics teachers. The items on

30 Perry and Mason

Table 1Results of ANOVA of Mathematics Teachers' and SupportTeachers' Perceptions of the Importance of Items

Category Item Maths Teachers Supj rf Teachers F(n=27) (n=31)

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

CooperationSTLD role 1 3.148 0.907 3.581 0.672 4.324*

2 2.741 0.813 2.806 1.108 0.065

4 3.185 0.557 3.516 0.57 4.968*

5 1.963 1.285 2.871 1.024 8.950**

9 2.667 1.271 3.194 0.980 3.167+

10 2.815 0.834 3.387 0.844 6.713*

14 2.556 1.423 1.097 1.274 16.964**

15 2.741 1.196 3.065 1.153 1.099

16 3.370 0.742 3.613 0.558 2.010

Maths teacherCompetency 3 3.074 0.874 3.516 0.851 3.797+

6 3.407 0.694 3.419 0.807 0.004

7 2.889 1.121 2.613 1.383 0.684

8 3.407 0.501 3.710 0.461 5.721*

11 3.333 0.92 3.323 0.748 0.002

13 3.370 0.629 3.677 0.475 4.463*

18 2.815 0.962 3.484 0.811 8.256**

20 3.407 0.747 3.742 0.445 4.422*

STLDCompetency 12 3.593 0.501 3.581 0.672 0.006

17 3.185 0.921 3.645 0.551 5.485*

19 2.593 1.309 2.258 1.591 0.751

* Significant at 0.05 ** Significant at 0.01 + Tending to significance

Support Teachers 31

which there were no significant differences in importance rating, mostlyrelated to the need for particular organisational and instructionalconsiderations to be given to students with learning difficulties inmathematics.

Highly significant differences in the ratings given in these threecategories obviously could affect the level of cooperation between the twogroups of teachers and, it would appear that these are the three areas onwhich further work needs to be done in order to improve the delivery ofteaching/learning opportunities to children in secondary schools who havelearning difficulties in mathematics.

Ranking of AchievementThe questionnaire also asked respondents to indicate how well they

believed each expectation was being achieved in their school. The meansof the responses from the group of mathematics teachers and the supportteachers were much more closely aligned when dealing with perceptions ofachievement than when dealing with perceptions of importance. However,there were comparatively large standard deviations for most items,indicating wide differences within the groups, perhaps because thesituations for particular teachers vary considerably. Only for item 15,dealing with compatible teaching philosophies between the two groups, wasthere any statistically significant differente in achievement rating(F=4.201, p=0.045). It is interesting to note that responses on theimportance of this item were . not significantly different between the twogroups of teachers. Perhaps there is some dissatisfaction with the ways inwhich certain teachers treat children with learning difficulties which isspilling over to this item. Certainly, in the case studies, it was suggestedthat current approaches to mathematics teaching, as witnessed in themathematics classes of the school, were not seen as being of great benefitto children with leaming difficulties in the subject.

Discrepancy AnalysisThe resuits of the discrepancy analysis for both support teachers and

mathematics teachers are given in Table 2. With the exception of threeitems (7, dealing with mathematics teachers using diagnostic tests, 13,dealing with mathematics teachers allocating resources and 14, concerningself-contained remedial classes), the support teachers have indicatedgreater discrepancy than the mathematics teachers. The differences indiscrepancy in the first two of these items is not substantial but item 14again displays a polarisation between the two groups of teachers, based onthe-significantly different importance ratings.

It appears that the mathematics teachers perceive a need forassistante in dealing with the leaming difficulties of their students (item 2),but have some doubt about the capacity of the support teacher to help them

32 Perry and Mason

Table 2Discrepancies Between Ratings for Importance and Achievementof Expectations for Mathematics Teachers and Support Teachers

Category Item Maths Teachers Support TeachersCooperationSTLD role 1 1.704 1.871

2 1.963 2.096

4 1.555 1.581

5 -0.296 0.677

9 1.000 1.355

10 1.259 2.129

14 1.186 -0.032

15 0.408 1.420

16 1.703 1.742

Maths teacherCompetency

3 1.148 1.581

6 1.074 1.580

7 1.408 1.323

8 1.777 2.065

11 1.296 1.839

13 2.074 1.871

18 0.371 1.581

20 0.777 1.452

STLDCompetency

12 1.556 1.807

17 1.333 1.677

19 0.926 1.129

Support Teachers 33

(items 1, 4, 12, 16). They also seem to be indicating the perennialdifficulty of not having enough time to deal with such children themselvesor to provide and use suitable materials (items 8, 13).

On the other hand, the support teachers appear to be frustrated bythe lack of opportunities available to them to consult with and help themathematics teachers (items 1, 2, 10, 16). However, they have alsoexpressed a high level of dissatisfaction about their own ability andtraining to deal with children who display learning difficulties inmathematics classes (items 12, 17).

The position of each group of teachers in terms of the role ofintegration versus segregation of students with learning difficulties inmathematics provides an interesting counterpoint between the two groupsof teachers. The mathematics teachers rated the importance of separateremedial classes nineteenth (but still over 2.5) but twelfth in discrepancy,indicating that it is moderately important and only moderately beingachieved (item 14). The support teachers have ranked this item last inimportance (by a margin of more than 1, indicating lack of importance)and discrepancy, indicating that they believe that there is ample evidence ofan unsatisfactory procedure going on in their schools. The item on"mainstreaming" children with learning difficulties in mathematics (item5) was ranked twentieth in importance by the mathematics teachers andgiven a negative discrepancy rating, indicating that they saw it as not asimportant as many other items and as being achieved at a level which morethan matches its importance. The support teachers have responded with asignificantly higher importance rating and positive discrepancy indicatingthat they see "mainstreaming" of children with learning difficulties inmathematics as important but not being achieved at the level they wouldperceive °as adequate.

Conclusion

There are significant differences between the two groups of tèachersstudied in their views of the respective roles and abilities of mathematicsteachers and support teachers in providing for the needs of students withlearning difficulties in mathematics.

In order that support teachers are able to fulfil their role andprovide support for mathematics teachers, appropriate consultativeprocedures will need to be implemented and professional developmentprovided for both groups of teachers.

The practice of support in mathematics classrooms for students withlearning difficulties demands considerable change to the organisation andembedded assumptions that presently underlie many of the teachingpractices in the secondary school.

Priorities given by support teachers to students' learning difficultiesin the various key learning areas are likely to be affected by opportunitiesto interact with particular subject teachers, their own confidence in the

34 Perry and Mason

particular curriculum area and the level of compatibility of teachingphilosophies between the support teacher and the classroom teacher.

The necessity to meet the learning needs of students in all keyleaming areas requires a breadth of expertise and skili in developingrelationships with other teachers which has not previously beencontemplated. Changes in the physical location of the support teacher andthe supervisory structure within the school, both of which werehighlighted in the case study interviews as being important in determiningin which faculty the support teacher spends most time, together with theprovision of professional development would assist in building confidenceand overcoming the reluctance of support teachers to work withmathematics teachers (Gamett, 1988). However, because there appears tobe a perception among many mathematics teachers that support teachershave very little expertise in mathematics and, therefore cannot help in themathematics classroom, there is unlikely to be a great demand for thedevelopment of closer cooperation between support teachers andmathematics teachers until that perception is changed.

A possible catalyst for change could be the mathematics teachersthemselves (Lovitt & Clarke, 1987). Initially, this may come from thoseteaching the Years 7 and 8 mathematics syllabus which advocates a student-centred, problem-solving approach relying on language to facilitateleaming. Support teachers are likely to respond positively to this approachto learning while many mathematics teachers have had some difficulty inadapting their teaching style to accommodate the approach. Theindications are that heads of mathematics faculties see value in developingco-operation between support teachers and mathematics teachers who areworking with Year 7 and 8 classes. Once the principle of classroomsupport is accepted by such a group of mathematics teachers, the will tomake it work may expand and develop, resulting in harmoniouscollaboration.

Support in the classroom for students with learning difficulties hasprofound implications for the nature of the organisation and delivery ofthe curriculum and the variety of teaching skills which classroom teachersneed to be able to implement. The most important principle to grasp isthat students with learning difficulties have a right of access to the school'scurriculum and, therefore, all teachers have a responsibility to examine theways in which they can respond to the leaming needs which emerge in theclasses they teach.

There is no doubt that, providing the educational and physicalclimates are conducive, positive partnerships between the support teacherand teachers of mathematics can be developed and will result in enhancedlearning opportunities for all students.

During 1992, the authors will implement an intervention studyaimed at improving the education of students with learning difficulties inmathematics .through the development of cooperative relationships betweensupport teachers and mathematics teachers. This study will incorporate an

Support Teachers 35

extended professional development course for support teachers andmathematics teachers within the Metropolitan South West Region ofSydney.

NOTES:1. This research was funded in 1990 and 1991 by a grant from theUniversity of Western Sydney, Macarthur. It is continuing in 1992 with agrant from the same source.

2. In this paper, all reference to support teachers will be to the particularposition of Support Teacher (Leaming Difficulties) as defined by the NSWDepartment of School Education. This will distinguish these teachers fromother groups of support teachers working within NSW schools.

References

Bines,H. (1986). Redefining remedial education. London: Croom Helm.Collins,S., & Hughes, P. (1979). Expectations of secondary schools.

Canberra: Canberra College of Advanced Education.Feiman-Nemser,S., & Floden,R.E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In

M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edition).New York: Macmillan.

Fraser,B. (1986). Two decades of research on perceptions of classroomenvironment. In B.J. Fraser (Ed.), The study of learning environments.Salem, OR: Assessment Research.

Friend,M., & McNutt,G. (1984). Resource room programs: Where are wenow? Exceptional children, 51 (2), 150-155.

Friend,M., & McNutt,G. (1987). A comparative study of resource teacherjob descriptions and administrators' perceptions of resource teacherresponsibilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 224-228.

Garnett,J. (1988). Support teaching: Taking a clóser look. British Journalof Special Education, 15 (1), 15-18.

Haladyna,T., Shaughnessy,J., & Shaughnessy,J.M. (1983). A causal analysisof attitude toward mathematics. Journal of Research in MathematicsEducation, 14, 19-29.

Inner London Education Authority. (1985). Educational opportunities forall? (Fish Report). London: Author.

Little,J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplaceconditions of school success. American Education Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Lortie,D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lovitt,C., & Clarke,D. (1987). The winds of change are sweeping through

maths education. Curriculum Development in Australian Schools, 3, 37.Maxwell,T. (1991). The support teacher: Roles and change. Unicorn, 17

(3), 159-164.

36 Perry and Mason

New South Wales Department of Education. (1987). The education ofchildren with learning difficulties from pre-school to year 12. Sydney:Author.

O'Reilly,R. (1975). Classroom climate and achievement in secondaryschool mathematics classes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 21,241-248.

Saranson,S.B. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change(2nd edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tobin,K., & Fraser,B.J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice inhigh school science and mathematics. Australian Journal of Education,32 (1), 75-94.

Twenty Expectations

All items commenced with the stem "Children with leaming difficulties inmathematics benefit if ...".

1. mathematics teachers consult with the support teacher (learningdifficulties) when usual teaching methods do not appear to have beeneffective with such students

2. mathematics teachers and the support teacher (learning difficulties)cooperate when arranging to meet with the parents of a child whohas learning difficulties in their class

3. mathematics teachers are able to deal with the educational needs of achild with learning difficulties in their classroom as well as workwith the other children in the class

4. the support teacher (learning difficulties) is able to help mathematicsteachers by offering suggestions for working with a child withleaming difficulties within the class program

5. they stay in the class with the mathematics teacher6. mathematics teachers are able to identify the specific problems of a

child with leaming difficulties7. mathematics teachers can use and interpret diagnostic tests for a

child with learning difficulties in mathematics8. mathematics teachers use materials that correlate with the learning

needs of children with learning difficulties in their classes9. the support teacher (learning difficulties) works in the classroom to

remediate the academic deficits of children with learning difficultiesin mathematics

10. mathematics teachers seek advice from the support teacher (learningdifficulties) when dealing with the academic program of childrenwith learning difficulties in their classes

Support Teachers 37

11. mathematics teachers believe that they are not neglecting otherstudents in the class while working with children with learningdifficulties

12, the support teacher (learning difficulties) is effective in dealing withchildren with learning difficulties in mathematics

13. mathematics teachers are able to allocate time and suitable materialsto children with learning difficulties

14. they are placed in a self-contained remedial class15. the support teacher (learning difficulties) and mathematics teachers

have compatible teaching philosophies in relation to classroompractices

16. opportunities are easily available for the support teacher (learningdifficulties) and mathematics teachers to share ideas and talk aboutchildren with maths difficulties

17. the support teacher (learning difficulties) is trained in moderntechniques for teaching mathematics

18. mathematics teachers fully understand the role of language across thecurriculum as it applies to mathematics

19. primary teaching is the initial training of the support teacher(learning difficulties) supplemented with courses in mathematicseducation

20. mathematics teachers have good pedagogical skilis and flexibleteaching strategies