Back as Deputy again... .. and the NCCD list

So that little sojourn back as Dean of Studies lasted all of two weeks and I'm back as deputy again, this time under the new Principal.  This is the fourth Principal in 12 years, each having their own quirks, and I imagine wondering what the hell is this upstart talking about now and why do I have to deal with him.

A pet hate has always been implementing things just to tick a box or because an actual solution likely to succeed is too hard.   It becomes quickly evident through my body language when I feel this is the case.   The current solution for "students identified through NCCD requiring additional support" may fall into this category, although the verdict is still out on the current solution. Students were identified and then pedagogy based solutions written up in documents outlining what will be done for them.  There is acknowledgement in staff that the current solutions are not working and more needs to be done to engage them.

My only beef with the current solution is that it appears more about documenting the existing modifications that are "good practice and good teaching" and should be done (regardless of being written up), rather than identifying strategies that will make a difference to a particular student different to the general needs of the group as a whole.

To my mind (as little as it is), the problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.  As a teacher I do not know the ins and outs of every intellectual disability or behavioural challenge (and in many cases I don't care about the diagnosis), I just want to know how to work best with my kids.  This knowledge is held by school Psychologists and Paediatricians and then provided to me through the school Psych, Student Services or a Deputy.  Best practice would say that it then goes into an IEP in conjunction with teachers of other LA's to make a consistent approach where possible.

With the NCCD kids, they may not have a diagnosis but we (as teachers) suspect that something is going wrong.  My issue with the approach on Friday at our PD day was that we were asking teachers for solutions - in most cases they had already tried what they knew (and thus indicated that something was wrong that required additional assistance).  A better approach (to my mind) is to look at standardised testing results, class results, psych files and then work with the care team to identify possible solutions for the student in the context of the whole class.  Working on individuals does not create a workable solution in a class as it does not take into account class dynamics, the biggest factor outside of appropriate content in engaging students.  This means that you will be looking at the whole class at once and developing IEPs for groups of students.  The class that I am thinking of had 85% of students on the NCCD list, a class that had come together from multiple primary feeders, each indicating that these students faced challenges in learning.

It also did not address the content issue.  By putting together teachers from multiple LAs, it did not address whether the student could access the curriculum or more specifically the modifications to the syllabus to allow them access to the curriculum.  When a student is 4-5 years below the year level achievement standard, modifications to pedagogy alone are insufficient to engage a student.  There it is, "the elephant in the room".  You cannot deliver a Year 7 syllabus to a student operating at a year 2 level.  They will be disruptive, bored and no amount of reward programs and pictorial representations will give them access to concepts that require years of scaffolding.

It does not address the workload issue.  Current estimations are that 25% of students or 100 students in the school need to be placed on the NCCD list.  Staff are querying how IEPs can be written, maintained and followed for all 100 students.  I too am worried that the current approach is not sustainable.

What's more, having 21 IEPs in a class all different without significant (eg. bodies to assist the teacher) assistance is not going to set up a positive learning environment and put significant stress on the educator in the room.  The picture that is created must identify which IEPs align and then create workable groups after classroom cohesion has been constructed through success, rapport and them having belief that learning is possible.  I'm not sure this was understood during the session.

So the challenge going forward is to measure the impact of the PD (I would love to be wrong and see engaged students as a result of the PD) and then if it fails, identify the positive parts and then try some of the things listed above that did work during a trial earlier in the year.  One of the nice things that happened recently was an acknowledgement that a role of the Wellness team was to identify classes or teachers that were not operating to capacity and allocate support to these teachers (rather than solely relying on ad hoc support from deputies, HOLAs and through performance management).  This has the potential to be an avenue to implement some of the more holistic approaches listed above outside of the current NCCD process and get further support to these students in need.