The Common Module and the Student Who Will Not Speak
In a common module unit on texts and human experiences, a Year 12 class of 22 includes a student, Aisha, who has not spoken in class discussions for eight weeks. She submits written work that is consistently strong - her paragraph on how a memoir represents collective memory scored 17/20 - but she has twice left the room during the assessed group presentation rehearsal. The presentation is worth 15 per cent and requires each student to speak for at least 90 seconds. The deputy principal says the requirement cannot be waived because speaking is a mandatory component of the course. Aisha's parents have not responded to two emails. The presentation is in 12 days.
1. What are the competing obligations, and what should the teacher, Mr Hale, do first?
Read the worked answer
The obligations are: the syllabus requirement that students demonstrate speaking and listening competence, applied consistently to all students; Aisha's wellbeing, given that she has left the room twice, which is a distress signal rather than defiance; procedural fairness, since a mark of zero without an attempt would be contestable; and communication with home, which has stalled. Mr Hale should not assume the cause - selective mutism, anxiety, a recent trauma, or a language background issue are all possible and require different responses.
His first step is not to plan the presentation but to gather information: a private, low-pressure conversation with Aisha that does not demand speech (she can write or type responses), a referral to the school counsellor through the established process, and a phone call rather than another email to the parents. He should also check whether the school has a documented adjustment process, because the deputy's statement that the requirement cannot be waived may be accurate about the outcome but not about the pathway - adjustments to how a requirement is demonstrated are different from waiving it.
2. Assume the counsellor confirms significant anxiety about public speaking and recommends an adjustment. Design a defensible adjustment that still assesses speaking.
Read the worked answer
The principle is to change the conditions of demonstration, not the standard. Options, in order of preference: (1) Aisha records her 90-second contribution as audio or video in advance and it is played to the group, with her present but not performing live - this still assesses spoken composition, register and clarity; (2) she presents to Mr Hale and one trusted peer in a small room, with the group presentation mark drawn from that; (3) she presents live but with a script and a pre-agreed exit signal.
Each option must be documented, agreed with Aisha and the counsellor, and applied as the school's adjustment process requires. Mr Hale should also give the whole class the same option to rehearse in a small group first, so the adjustment is not visibly singling her out. The assessment criteria should remain identical - clarity, control of register, engagement with the text - so the mark is comparable to her peers'. This is defensible because it preserves the syllabus requirement while removing the barrier that is unrelated to the skill being assessed.
3. A colleague says the adjustment is unfair to students who must present live. How should Mr Hale respond?
Read the worked answer
He should distinguish fairness from sameness. Fairness means every student has an equivalent opportunity to demonstrate the same skill against the same criteria; sameness means every student performs under identical conditions regardless of barriers. A student with a documented anxiety condition faces a barrier unrelated to the skill of speaking, and removing that barrier equalises opportunity rather than advantaging her.
He can also note that the adjustment is not costless for Aisha - recording in advance and presenting to a smaller audience still requires her to speak and be assessed - and that the school applies adjustments across subjects as a matter of policy, so consistency runs in the direction of following the process, not defying it. If the colleague's concern is that other students might seek the same adjustment without need, the answer is the documented process: adjustments require evidence, and the counsellor's recommendation is that evidence. Mr Hale should keep the conversation about criteria and evidence rather than about Aisha personally.