On disability funding
Differentiation and the economics of the NCCD
It's that time of year again, when teachers are scrambling for documentation to prove they have differentiated for students who qualify for NCCD funding. This annual admin effort has compelled me to write a post I have been meaning to write for a couple of years now. It's complex and so it has taken some time for me to consolidate my thoughts. Oh, and a caveat: there are plenty of people with more experience and knowledge in this area than me, so I'm happy to be corrected.
Greg Ashman has written extensively on the topic of differentiation and its (thus far) lack of merit as a teaching strategy. You could start here to find out more about the poor evidence base for differentiation, the hidden cost to whole class quality instruction and the lack of a solid definition in relation to its scope and methods. Greg has even written to Parliament in relation to the curriculum review and the implied expectations that come with the stage not age approach. I have nothing new to add to the pedagogical discussion. Instead, I'm going to try to connect the economic and administerial dots.
Firstly, NCCD funding is tied to the level of adjustment for each identified student. You can read more about it here. It also needs to be supported by evidence. It would be plausible to infer that the greater the adjustment, the greater chance and amount of funding. Here are some potential problems with this:
Student activities need to look different to attract funding - the more 'differentiated', the more straightforward the need for adjustment appears
Ability grouping is not advantageous to the funding model. Quality whole class instruction to a smaller group full of similarly struggling students requires no differentiated work beyond the quality scaffolds and instruction provided for all, thus not attracting funding
Quality 1: 1 verbal explanations, targeted at individual students, count for nothing under this model as they are difficult to document
Rigorous programs with scaffolds and modelling embedded provide no evidence of adjustment unless alternative work is provided, taking the financial rewards away from quality programming and towards differentiated activities
Differentiated activities often need to be completed independently of the rest of the class, meaning that students are necessarily excluded from quality whole class instruction
In other words, activities that separate the identified students from the group and create a paper trail are rewarded by this funding model. The Disability Discrimination Act was designed for inclusion and also to take the decision making away from individual teachers who had set preconceived caps on what they personally believed students could or could not achieve. Now we have exclusion in plain sight - students sitting in the classroom but not actually accessing the learning of their peers. Rather than focusing on professional development and teacher quality, this model rewards the volume of individualised activities produced in a recordable form, setting students with a disability on a path that's divergent with their peers.
There are certainly cases where differentiation in the classroom is the only option, for example for students whose reading or writing age places them at a stage or more below their peers. But surely this is an argument for intervention rather than giving worksheets that only enable students to maintain skills at their current levels. And here's where the economics come in again: teacher time is free, intervention is costly. Financially, it's far more beneficial for schools to ask teachers to create separate lessons and have a teacher's aide sit in (if the teacher is lucky) to monitor their completion with several students, than to implement evidence based intervention programs at a ratio of 1:1. Again, it hides a problem that is twofold - teachers often don't have the training or time to intervene meaningfully with primary school level instruction, and the funding model rewards accommodating student skill and knowledge deficits rather than addressing them.
I'm really open to being corrected on any of this. In fact, I would be delighted to be wrong. in my personal experience, I have taught the most challenged groups of learners but have ended the year evidence-poor. Strong routines, (sometimes lockstep) modelling and scaffolding, deliberate practice and high-level monitoring with instant feedback, given by myself and my highly trained support teachers doesn't really count for much under the model. Had I created separate lessons and given each student 2-3 minutes of my time, I would have been rich with evidence. I do understand the need for accountability but feel like our students are being done a disservice through problem-bypass. If we really want individual needs met, it might be time to ask honestly what students need. The answer may just be a boring and, I admit, a more challenging one: well trained teachers, quality instruction and intervention where needed.