Inclusive Classroom and Additional Support Needs Assessment for Teaching Assistants and TeachersThe sheet has been refused three times. What did the three sheets have in common?

Methodology: Thirty-eight original exercises across six formats: sixteen written classroom situations with four graded moves each; six select-every-change exercises on a sheet, an instruction, a note or a plan; six true-or-false claims about classroom support; four match-the-following exercises pairing what a pupil did or what a task demanded with the adjustment or the barrier that fits it; three ordering exercises on giving an instruction, withdrawing a prompt and changing a record; and three keyed-reading exercises. Construct statement: this measures classroom practice, meaning the moves a supporting adult makes so that every pupil in the room can take part, in written situations in one sitting, in five parts: noticing the barrier rather than the behaviour, adjusting the task and the material, giving instructions that reach everyone, supporting independence and withdrawing help, and working with the teacher, the family and the record. It does not identify, diagnose, screen or label any child, and it cannot be used to: no exercise names a condition or a category and no result says anything about any pupil. It does not measure a respondent's relationships with children, their patience, their compassion, their character, their classroom, their qualifications or their employment, and it is never a basis for a decision about anybody's employment. One response instruction is declared for the whole instrument and it is a BEHAVIOURAL TENDENCY instruction: every situation asks what the respondent is most likely to do, never what should be done, and the select-all, claim, matching, ordering and reading exercises ask what they would change, rely on, match or set. Scoring is design C1, construct-weighted graded situational judgement with a SPARSE credit vector. Every situation option carries an effectiveness value from zero to three and a declared credit vector over the five parts, read from the seed and never inferred: the situation's own part is credited by every option, and at most one further part is credited by some options, so no option credits more than two parts and the realised mean load is printed in the scoring design note. Choosing an option enters that option's credited parts only: the part's numerator takes the option's value, its denominator takes three, and its chance term takes the expected value of the options that credit that part, conditional on one of them being chosen, at the declared answer priors. Every other exercise credits its own part at weight one with a quality from zero to one and a chance term from its own declared marginal: on each claim the authored share expected to answer true; on each select-all an authored selection share per option from which the expected overlap with the key is computed exactly over every possible selection; on each matching exercise an authored share expected to place each left-hand item correctly; on each ordering exercise an authored share expected to place each position correctly; on each reading exercise an authored share per option. Zero on every figure means no better than a respondent answering the way people typically answer, the null is that declared marginal and never uniform random, and observed answer shares replace the authored ones once live data exist. An unanswered exercise leaves the numerator, the denominator and the chance term together; an empty sitting scores exactly zero; a sitting with fewer than twenty-two answered exercises is refused a headline rather than given one, and the refusal is printed where the headline would have been; a part with fewer than eight entered exercises, or an assumed omega under .70 decided on the unrounded value, carries a three-way placement and no number, and the refusal is printed in its row. Omega is McDonald's omega estimated from the number of entered exercises and an assumed average inter-item correlation of .26, stated as an assumption that observed data will replace, and every figure carries its 68 and 95 per cent bands from an assumed standard deviation printed on the page. No percentile appears anywhere because there is no norm group. A careless-responding flag count is computed for the operator and never shown to the respondent as a judgement. Three fixed habits were pushed through the real builder before release, choosing on every situation the option that gives the most adult help, choosing on every situation the option that hands the matter to the teacher or the family, and choosing the first-listed option on every exercise; each lands below a typical respondent and the figures are recorded in the scoring design note. No exercise keys on any country's special-education law, plan type, funding category or assessment process; where a school process matters it is stated in the exercise in one plain sentence. No exercise's key depends on a pupil's sex, community, family circumstance or home language. Across the bank the keyed answers favour access, independence and the pupil's own voice: help that is withdrawn in steps is keyed above help that is permanent, an adjustment made for the class is keyed above one that singles a pupil out, and no keyed answer has a supporting adult doing the work for a pupil, sitting permanently beside one pupil, or removing a pupil from the room as a first move. Every item is an original work; the instrument reproduces no item from any published test and is not affiliated with any commercial instrument, inclusion framework, professional standards body or certification. Where a published framework is named in a rationale it is cited as a source and nothing more. Sources drawn on across the construct: Booth and Ainscow, Index for Inclusion (2002; 2011), on barriers to participation as features of the setting rather than of the child; Rose and Meyer, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age (2002), and the CAST Universal Design for Learning guidelines (2018), on multiple means of representation and expression; Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) on inclusive pedagogy and adjustments made for everybody; Blatchford, Russell and Webster, Reassessing the Impact of Teaching Assistants (2012), and Webster, Russell and Blatchford, Maximising the Impact of Teaching Assistants (2016), on the cost of permanent adult proximity and on the record; Sharples, Webster and Blatchford (2015), the Education Endowment Foundation guidance on deploying teaching assistants; Radford, Bosanquet, Webster and Blatchford (2015) on scaffolding for independence; Bosanquet, Radford and Webster, The Teaching Assistant's Guide to Effective Interaction (2016); Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli and MacFarland (1997), Helping or Hovering, and Giangreco (2010) on one-to-one support; Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) on scaffolding and Pea (2004) on fading; Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) on self-instruction; Sweller (1988; 2011) on cognitive load, split attention and transient information; Rosenshine (2012), Principles of Instruction; Tomlinson (2014) on keeping the goal while changing the route; Norwich and Lewis (2005) on the special pedagogy question; Epstein (2001) on school and family partnership; Hattie and Timperley (2007) on task, process and self levels of feedback, which is why nothing in the report is written at the self level; Gollwitzer (1999) and Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) on implementation intentions; McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel and Grubb (2007) on behavioural-tendency response instructions; Lievens, Peeters and Schollaert (2008) on situational judgement tests as a method; Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez (2002) on item writing; McDonald (1999) on omega.