Relational Design, Non-Judgemental Regulation, and Daily Connection: A Case Study of Re-engaging High-Functioning Autistic Learners in an Alternative NCEA Setting

Introduction

Disengagement among secondary school students has traditionally been framed as an issue of motivation, behaviour, or capability. However, emerging research suggests that disengagement is more accurately understood as a mismatch between learner needs and institutional design [1,2]. This is particularly evident for high-functioning autistic students, who often possess strong intellectual capacity but encounter persistent barriers related to sensory processing, executive functioning, and implicit social expectations [3–5]. Mainstream schooling environments—characterised by rigid behavioural expectations, limited tolerance for emotional dysregulation, and high social demands—can inadvertently marginalise these learners [6,7]. As a result, students may be labelled as underperforming or disengaged despite significant underlying capability. This paper examines an alternative model implemented by the Villa NCEA Academy, in which relational safety, non-judgemental regulation, and structural flexibility are embedded into daily practice. The model is further strengthened by a lockdown-era innovation involving daily teacher–student contact.

Methods

This study adopts a qualitative case study methodology, drawing on institutional practices, leadership accounts, and alignment with established theoretical frameworks. The analysis is interpretive, situating observed practices within the broader literature on autism, engagement, and trauma-informed education.

The Villa NCEA Academy Model

Relational Architecture: Daily Whanau Practice

Central to the model is the daily 1 p.m. whanau gathering, in which every student participates in structured reflection. Questions such as:

• “What has been your happiest moment today?”

• “What has been your saddest moment?”

• “On a scale of 1–10, how are you feeling?”

create a predictable, emotionally literate community. Such practices align with evidence that structured relational engagement enhances psychological safety and academic participation [8,9].

Non-Judgemental Regulation as Core Practice

A defining feature of the Villa model is the normalisation of regulation behaviours.

Students were explicitly supported to:

• signal overload using a “T” hand gesture

• leave the classroom without permission to regulate

• cry or experience emotional release without intervention or correction

• withdraw physically (e.g., sit under desks, isolate briefly) Crucially:

These behaviours were not pathologised—they were accepted as part of learning.

There was:

• no judgement

• no behavioural correction

• no punitive response Students were trusted to: return when ready

Theoretical Alignment

This approach aligns strongly with contemporary understandings of autism and regulation:

• Emotional dysregulation is often a response to overload, not defiance [5,10]

• Suppressing regulation behaviours increases distress and reduces cognitive capacity [11]

• Psychological safety is a prerequisite for learning [12]

By allowing students to regulate openly, the Villa model removed the need for masking—a cognitively and emotionally costly process commonly reported by autistic individuals [13].

Flexible Structural Design

The Villa environment intentionally minimised traditional constraints:

• No uniforms

• Minimal rules

• Open hours (8 a.m.–6 p.m.)

• Voluntary movement within the learning space

Rather than producing chaos, this resulted in:

• reduced anxiety

• increased autonomy

• improved engagement

This reflects a shift from compliance-based education to self-regulation-based education.

Lockdown Innovation: Daily Individual Connection

During COVID-19 lockdowns, the model extended into a digital format. A key practice was implemented:

Every teacher contacted every student, every day.

Using platforms such as Microsoft Teams, communication included:

• video calls

• live interaction

• chat-based support

Connection as Safeguarding

This daily contact functioned as:

• an engagement mechanism

• a wellbeing monitoring system

• a safeguard against isolation

Research indicates that social isolation during COVID-19 significantly increased risks of depression and anxiety among young people [14,15]. The Villa model effectively mitigated these risks through consistent relational presence.

The ''Zero Invisibility'' Principle

The combined practices of:

• daily whanau gathering (collective visibility)

• daily teacher contact (individual visibility)

ensured that:

no student became invisible

This dual-layer relational system is consistent with trauma-informed educational approaches emphasising connection as a protective factor [16].

Outcomes

A striking outcome of the Villa model was that:

All enrolled students—many entering as documented academic failures—successfully transitioned into university.

This finding challenges prevailing assumptions about:

• the limits of disengaged learners

• the impact of non-traditional structures

• the necessity of behavioural compliance for academic success Instead, it suggests that:

when barriers are removed, capability emerges.

Discussion

Reframing Behaviour

Traditional education systems often interpret behaviours such as withdrawal, emotional expression, or avoidance as non-compliance. In contrast, the Villa model interprets these behaviours as: signals of regulation need

This reframing aligns with neurodevelopmental and trauma-informed perspectives [10,16].

The Cost of Suppression vs the Power of Acceptance

Suppressing behaviours such as:

• leaving the room

• emotional expression

• physical withdrawal can increase cognitive load and reduce learning capacity [11,13].

By contrast, accepting these behaviours:

• reduces stress

• restores regulation

• enables re-engagement

Relational Pedagogy and Academic Excellence

The Villa model demonstrates that:

high expectations and high compassion are not contradictory— they are interdependent.

Academic success was not achieved despite the relational model, but because of it.

System Design vs Student Deficit

This case study reinforces a key conclusion: Disengagement is often a system design failure, not a student failure.

When systems:

• demand conformity over regulation

• prioritise compliance over connection

• enforce uniformity over flexibility they exclude learners whose needs fall outside the norm.

The musical expression that can be found at the following link captures the reality of this medical narrative.

https://heyzine.com/flip-book/01d02ae14b.html

Conclusion

The Villa NCEA Academy model provides a compelling example of how education can be redesigned to support high-functioning autistic learners.

Key insights include:

• regulation must be accepted, not suppressed

• connection must be systematic, not incidental

• flexibility must be intentional, not accidental

The COVID-19 lockdown period further demonstrated that:

daily human connection is one of the most powerful protective and educational interventions available.

Ultimately, this model shows that when learners are:

• seen

• accepted

• supported

they are not only capable of re-engagement—they are capable of excellence.

References

1. Hattie J. Visible Learning. London: Routledge; 2009.
2. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC; 2013.
4. Lai, M. C., Lombardo, M. V., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014). vol. 383, issue 9920. Autism Lancet, 896-910.
5. Robertson, C. E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017). Sensory perception in autism. Nature reviews neuroscience, 18(11), 671-684.
6. Humphrey, N., & Lewis, S. (2008). Make me normal’ The views and experiences of pupils on the autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools. Autism, 12(1), 23-46.
7. Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J., & Rodger, S. (2008). Sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioral, and educational outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorder. The American journal of occupational therapy, 62(5), 564-573.
8. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of educational research, 79(1), 491-525.
9. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child development, 82(1), 405-432.
10. Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(1), 26-32.
11. Pellicano, E., & Burr, D. (2012). When the world becomes ‘too real’: a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(10), 504-510.
12. Brunzell T, Waters L, Stokes H. Trauma-informed education. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015;19:1–13.
13. Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M. C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 47(8), 2519-2534.
14. Loades, M. E., Chatburn, E., Higson-Sweeney, N., Reynolds, S., Shafran, R., Brigden, A., ... & Crawley, E. (2020). Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(11), 1218-1239.
15. Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The lancet child & adolescent health, 4(6), 421.
16. Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed positive education: Using positive psychology to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(1), 63-83.
17. OECD. Students at Risk of School Failure. Paris: OECD; 2012.
18. Roorda DL et al. Teacher–student relationships and engagement. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(4):493–529.