Implementing a required curriculum reform: teachers at the core, teaching assistants on the periphery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the part played by teaching assistants in the implementation of the National Literacy and National Numeracy Strategies, two widespread UK government reforms. Evidence from two sources of evaluation (the Ontario Institute in Canada and OfSTED, the school inspectorate for England) indicates that assistants are providing 'remedial' support for up to 25% of children in English primary schools. However, although the evaluators note this, they fail to truly acknowledge the important contribution of assistants to the functioning of the Strategies. The paper argues that the lack of acknowledgement arises from the evaluators' view of teaching assistants as 'peripheral' and teachers as 'core'. This does assistants a great disservice, but also masks the shortcomings of the Strategies, particularly with regard to the way in which a required pedagogy, linked to targets and tests, has created an exclusionary pressure leading to the separation of teaching by teachers and assistants, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".