Rarely has an educational decade seen such dramatic reactions as in the proposal, acceptance and subsequent expansion of the involvement of aides in education. Many different terms are used – usually interchangeably – such as paraprofessionals, auxiliary staff, teacher assistants, etc.

The basic rationale was that the aide could free the teacher from the trivial, mundane administrative matters and thus release him for the more ‘professional’ areas of curriculum, programming and implementation. In many schools it is considered essential to distinguish between the professional and the non-professional; and this generally means between the instructional, and the non-instructional. Some leading educators are forcing a reappraisal of this thinking for they feel that the aide can provide significant assistance in the instructional field. And, as time progresses the extent of involvement in the instructional programme will probably increase.

Analysis of the argument for and against the employment of aides generally indicates that the employment is validated on educational grounds, whereas it is criticised on personal or administrative grounds. Whilst appreciating that education is concerned at present with the interaction of people with people, it is essential to establish the correct priorities: are teachers more important than the pupils they teach? Is the teacher who has an unfounded reservation because of possible side effects more important than the pupil who can learn more effectively because of the presence of an aide? Obviously the pupil is the prime consideration, because the task is the important thing! However most critics appear to show that the child is not the important factor.