The Significant Difficulties

1) Underperformance across a number of school

subjects
2)Significant Social Disadvantage
3) Emotional Regulation difficulties.
How do these issues affect Student Education & Wellbeing?
Education Perspective
Student:
- Underperformance = Long Term Issues for Future Career Endeavours
- Linguistic Minority = Learning Capability is limited due to language barriers.
- Emotional Difficulties = Struggles to work in groups due to Social Anxiety Disorder.
Example: If Priya wants to be a teacher she needs to achieve a Band 5 in English. If
she continues to underperform her future endeavours will be affected.
Wellbeing
Student:
- Stress = Underperformance & Linguistic Barriers.
Example: Priya’s wellbeing already identifies stress on a daily basis and is under
extra pressure due to underperformance and limited help.
This stress may affect her decision making due to ‘surrounding influences’.
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

Teacher: Teacher:
- Identification of Issues of Concern = Building Positive Relationships to assist Priya. - ‘Duty of Care’ = Student performance & wellbeing.
- Teaching pedagogy = Due to differentiation of learning needs and accommodating
Example: Conversation of academic goals and future life choices. Teacher linguistic barriers.
Pedagogy and use of Control vs Care (Bowen & Flinders, 1990) and the 4 Key
components of the Lyford Model. (Nobile et al, 2017). Example: NSW Department of Education & Training Code of Conduct: Employee
Responsibility Duty of Care, 2017.
Supporting Student’s Behaviour Needs, 2015.

School: School:
- School Underperformance of National Standards. - Positive Learning Environments
- Lack of cultural understanding and linguistics. - School Image
- School needs to more aware of student mental stability.
Example: Counsellor Report of Student wellbeing report.
Example: NAPLAN results reflecting underperformance of school. QT Model and The Wellbeing Frame for Schools, 2015.
the effectiveness of teacher pedagogy. School Autonomy.
Strategies

▪ Individual Approach (Student Approach)

▪ Classroom Approach (Teacher Approach)
▪ Whole-School Approach
 Individual Approach (Student)

▪ Students with linguistic barriers and academic underperformance may have a tendency to
suffer from social anxiety affecting student wellbeing.
▪ These students need to be catered for through differentiation and a personalised learning and
support plan as refer to within ‘Planning for Personalised Learning and Support: A National
Resource. (2005).’

▪ In relation to our case Scenario:

We have decided on this intervention due to the suggestion of teachers engaging with
‘contributing professionals to understand the underlying problems’ and resulted on the
referral to the see the school counsellor. (Nobile,.. et al,2017, 244.)
Priya has been suggested by fellow teachers to see the counsellor to undergo Rational
Emotive Behaviour Therapy. (Ellis, 1995)
 Individual Approach: REBT

“The goal of REBT is to teach individuals to think more rationally about the things
that upset them, and as a result behave more appropriately” (Ellis, 2001).

Follow Up Meeting: Intervention for Social-Emotional Learning. Be Proactive (Mitchem, 2005).

 Classroom Approach (Teacher)

▪ “Teachers must be sensitive to the needs of the students and try to help them to deal with pain in more
positive ways.” The Pain Model (2000).
▪ Teachers must be aware of the students learning ability and mental state in order to identify the correct
teaching pedagogy that should be used. This means including differentiation of learning and adapting
the ‘graded exposure theory’ to their pedagogy (REFERENCE NEEDED).

▪ In addition to adjusting teaching pedagogy for differentiated learning abilities. We could use the “10C
Model of Communication” to communicate with the class and particular students in what we could
improve on. (De Nobile, 2016) This would be reflected within the teachers ability to be reflexive and
adaptable in adjusting four key components of the Lyford Model within their pedagogies. (De Nobile et
al, 2016). Not only will this improve students performance but will assist in maintaining positive
relationships between teacher and student.
 Classroom Approach: Graded Exposure Theory

▪ Natalie Trigg’s A Teachers Guide to Identifying Childhood Disorders in the

classroom: Checklists & Strategies (2005.) [Could be useful]
▪ Incorporate Quality Teaching Model??
 Whole-School Approach
▪ “Students must be valued” Pain Model (2000)

▪ Teachers and students both need to be valued and respected for who they are and their
beliefs.
In implementing value as a whole school approach. We as ‘teachers are to instill certain values
in their students, by delivering programs of lessons and activities that directly relate to specific
values’ (Values Education: Nobile et al.. 2017)

▪ Case Scenario: Multi-cultural day that focuses on a whole school approach of inclusivity and
cultural background reflection. Teachers will need to be inclusive and incorporate attributes of
cultural background and knowledge within their lesson programs.
 Whole School Approach: Multi-Cultural day
▪ In celebrating Multiculturalism, a day event within a school would allow recognition of all races and
equal opportunities for each student to participate in many cultural events.
An event like ‘ Harmony Day’ could create positive attitudes towards a culture and emphasis a positive
cultural environment.
This could assist Priya in making social connections with fellow students that may have cultural
relations. Not only could Priya make friends but she could feel accepted by the school community.
This would be through the recognition of linguistic barriers and accepting diversity.
▪ In recognition of multiculturalism, students could showcase performances, artworks and class
projects. This could highlight the students performance in subjects and show acceptance of the
students achievements and developments.

You Tube Multicultural Day: Celebrating Multiculturalism in Australia. (2016) Around the World
Consultancy.
▪ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GR_0RZDvus
 Criticising the Interventions Theories
List of Intervention Theories:
- Control vs Care (Bowen & Flinders, 1990)
- Lyford Model (Nobile et al, 2017)
- Quality Teaching Model (NSW DET, 2003)
- Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner,
1979)
- NSW Department of Education & Training
Code of Conduct: Employee Responsibility
Duty of Care, 2017.
- Supporting Student’s Behaviour Needs,
2015.
All these theories were considered within our scenario and were used in multiple approaches. The theories mostly
focus on are highlighted above.
- Wellbeing Framework for Schools, 2015.
- Planning for Personalised Learning and Support: A
National Resource. (2005).’
- Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (Ellis, 1995)
- Be Proactive (Mitchem, 2005)
- Pain Model (2000)
- Graded Exposure Theory (REFERENCE)
- 10C Model of Communication
- Natalie Trigg’s A Teachers Guide to Identifying
Childhood Disorders in the classroom: Checklists &
Strategies (2005.)
- Value Education (Nobile et al., 2017)
Criticising the Interventions: Student Approach
▪ Student Interventions:
Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: Priya might not want to see a psychologist. REBT involves long
term and won’t happen overnight. She may disagree with the irrational and rational beliefs.
It’s up to Priya to change her thinking of receiving help from a psychologist or school counsellor.
Ecological Systems Theory: Priya’s ecological systems may not be at fault. Her emotional difficulties
could be self-inflicted and therefore she needs to learn how to self-manage her difficulties.
Personalised Learning Plans (PLP): Although PLP’s can be beneficial for the student. It can be
detrimental on her co-operation in class activities. Unless she is suited with students on the same
PLP. PLP could be ineffective as emotional difficulties could be the “cause”’ of misbehaviour and the
“effect” could be underperformance.
The Pain Model: Respect may not go both ways due to lack of teacher-student relationship or
unwillingness to co-operate.
Be Proactive (SEL): Students may find this intervention to extensive. The acronym is long and hard
to remember. Student’s may struggle to be reflective on their issues of concern due to their coping
mechanisms.
Criticising the Interventions: Teacher Approach
▪ Classroom Intervention:
Quality Teaching Model: Catering for differentiation may be easy to create but difficult to implement. Yet alone the
incorporation of APST Standards within learning involving lesson content that gives coverage of cultural
background. Cultural requirements are less likely to be met inclusively due to extensive depth cultures can
present. It could lead students off topic.
▪ 10C Model for Communication: Communication is a constant resource to maintain. Once a connection starts to go
south, so does the relationship. Teacher-student relationships will not be available with all students. Limited time
to teach relevant content and communicate the needs of all students.
▪ Graded Exposure Theory: Teachers may know what would be best for the student. But there is always the
possibility that they could be wrong and make the situation/ her anxiety worse. This theory involves progress and
regular meeting with the school counsellor to devise a good hierarchical therapy for her. This then needs to be
represented to all teachers for implementation.
▪ Lyford Model: Teachers are not reflective and adaptable to students needs. They aren’t creating positive learning
environments by excluding the factors of ‘classroom climate, physical environment and instructional practices’.
▪ Pain Model: Using the four key components could be preventative of misbehaviour if it is done right. Always the
possibility of backfire. You could have 2 components covered and will still face challenging behaviours as each
impact the other. Interventional approach is through teacher pedagogy. If teachers are not reflexive the problem
may still remain.
Criticising the Interventions: Whole-School Approach
▪ Whole-School Intervention:
▪ The Pain Model: “Students must be valued” Including everyone brings about the ideas of equity and
equality and managing differentiation for all. Students might to valued but not in a overwhelming
way especially individuals who are anxious. Outbursts of activities are high levels of engagement can
make them panic. Students could feel embarrassed and humiliated because there is a school-
recognised appreciation of their cultural/ language background.
▪ Values Education: Refers to the ability as a whole-school to implement activities that show
multiculturalism. Although this needs to be incorporated not only in playground settings but within
the class environment as well. Morals will need to emphasis the importance of equality and rights. As
the day could evoke racism in some students. Student Action teams don’t contribute enough.
Inculcation results in misbehaviour due to students beliefs of being controlled.
▪ Lyford Model - Classroom Climate: Different perspectives. Students need to be informed of rules and
consequences, rights and responsibilities and maybe create a code of conduct to limit misbehaviour.
Students are likely to make fun of each other if boundaries are not in place.
 Short Term & Long Term Outcomes
Short Term Outcome
- REBT will gradually help Priya achieve her goals
whether they be socially, emotionally or
academically.
- She will improvement in all issue concern areas as
she climbs up the hierarchical goal list.
- She will have a better understanding of the
relationship between the individual, teacher and
school.
- Multicultural day will help her understand the
acceptance of cultures and that it is a blessing not a
burden.
Long Term Outcomes
- REBT and Multicultural day could result in social
success of positive relationships with peers and
teachers.
- She may overcome her Social Anxiety Disorder and
will be able to participate in group work activities in
class.
- Underperformance will become development due to
the linguistic barrier and communication improving
with teacher and student relationships.
- She will improve on subjects that she was struggling
due to extra content that may be implemented
through teaching pedagogies.
- She will continue to develop her skills, knowledge
and learn to self-manage her behaviour to cope with
the stress of every day anxiety.
 References
▪ Bandura, A. (1995). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenctice Hall.
▪ Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological Models of human development. (2nd ed.). Boston: Oxford, Elsevier.
▪ De Jong, T. (2005). A Framework of Principles and Best Practice for Managing Student Behaviour in the Australian Education Context. School Psychology
International, 26(3), 353-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034305055979
▪ De Nobile, J. (2016). The 10C Model of Organisational Communication: Exploring the interaction of school leaders.. Wellington, New Zealand: NZARE Annual
Conference.
▪ De Nobile, J., & Hogan, E. (2014). Values Education: what, how, why and what next?. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 12(1).
▪ De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. Positive learning environments.
▪ Department of Education & Training. (2017). Code of Conduct: Employee Responsibility Duty of Care. NSW: DET NSW.
▪ Department of Education & Training. Supporting Student's Behaviour Needs. NSW: NSW DET.
▪ Department of Education and Training. (2005). Planning for Personalised Learning and Support: A National Resource. Australia: Australian Government.
▪ Department of Education and Training New South Wales. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools.. Sydney: DETNSW.
▪ Downing, J., & Mitchem, K. (2005). Be Proactive. Intervention In School And Clinic, 40(3), 188-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512050400030901
▪ Education & Communities. (2015). The Wellbeing Framework for Schools. NSW: NSW Government.
▪ Ellis, A. (1995). Changing Rational Emotive Therapy to Rational Emotive Behaviour. Journal Of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 13(2), 85-9.
▪ Ellis, A. (2002). Overcoming destructive beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
▪ Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York: David Mackay Inc.
▪ Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2015). The Lyford model of Classroom Management (pp. 2063-76). South Melbourne: Creative Education.