End streaming in Ontario high schools?

[jacee]

/end-streaming-in-ontario-high-schools-report-urges-

The group [People for Education] says it wants to bring attention to the practice they believe is negatively affecting student achievement.

They want to delay the decision to enrol in applied or academic courses until after Grade 9.

I think it makes a lot of sense: Kid's are being forced to choose a stream before they know what high school is like.

I also think we shouldn't be streaming kids, but courses, and let kids choose across streams: Some kids can handle academic Math but only applied English, for example.

Streaming kids limits them to the level of their weakest subject.

.

Edited April 13, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Don't they go back and forth with this one quite a bit ? I remember destreaming, streaming, being implemented and de-implemented and re-implemented...

[Mighty AC]

/end-streaming-in-ontario-high-schools-report-urges-

The group [People for Education] says it wants to bring attention to the practice they believe is negatively affecting student achievement.

They want to delay the decision to enrol in applied or academic courses until after Grade 9.

I think it makes a lot of sense: Kid's are being forced to choose a stream before they know what high school is like.

I also think we shouldn't be streaming kids, but courses, and let kids choose across streams: Some kids can handle academic Math but only applied English, for example.

Streaming kids limits them to the level of their weakest subject.

.

Students can already choose different levels on a course by course basis. For example, there are kids who take academic English and applied level math. Students can also start in an applied level class then jump up to academic or vice versa.

The vast majority fall into one stream level. After grade 8, students used to be rated as advanced, general or basic in each core subject. Most would fall into one category across the board. The terminology was changed to applied and academic, but the system is largely the same. I'm fine with making it easier to choose differing levels but, in my opinion, ending the practice of streaming or delaying it a year would be a huge mistake.

Time is always the most scarce resource in education and a large portion of students who enroll in the applied level courses come with significant behaviour and work ethic issues. A great deal of time is spent mitigating problems that have nothing to do with education, which steals time from better students. The goal is to advance all students and streaming allows for a greater level of progress for more kids.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

Don't they go back and forth with this one quite a bit ? I remember destreaming, streaming, being implemented and de-implemented and re-implemented...

I remember discussion but not actual destreaming.

.

[jacee]

Students can already choose different levels on a course by course basis. For example, there are kids who take academic English and applied level math. Students can also start in an applied level class then jump up to academic or vice versa.

The vast majority fall into one stream level. After grade 8, students used to be rated as advanced, general or basic in each core subject. Most would fall into one category across the board. The terminology was changed to applied and academic, but the system is largely the same.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm fine with making it easier to choose differing levels but, in my opinion, ending the practice of streaming or delaying it a year would be a huge mistake.

Time is always the most scarce resource in education and a large portion of students who enroll in the applied level courses come with significant behaviour and work ethic issues. A great deal of time is spent mitigating problems that have nothing to do with education, which steals time from better students.

That's a teacher's perspective and focused on what you think is best for Academic students.

I think streaming kids before they've had a chance to adjust to high school is a mistake.

The goal is to advance all students and streaming allows for a greater level of progress for more kids.

I think that's very questionable.

Teachers are important, but students are often motivated more by their peers.

The 60% dropout rate for Applied students is pretty disturbing.

.

Edited April 14, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

That's a teacher's perspective and focused on what you think is best for Academic students.

Being in groups of roughly the same ability is better for everyone involved. Slowing down advanced students is just as bad as going to fast for general level students.

I think streaming kids before they've had a chance to adjust to high school is a mistake.

Why? Grade 9 isn't that different academically, than grade 8.

I think that's very questionable.

Why?

The 60% dropout rate for Applied students is pretty disturbing.

60% of applied kids fail to graduate on time, they aren't all dropouts. Many drop or fail classes along the way and have to come back to complete a couple of courses. Many also fail to complete their volunteer hours and must wait to graduate. Edited April 14, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

Being in groups of roughly the same ability is better for everyone involved.

No it isn't for Applied students. Role modelling, challenging etc have a beneficial effect.

Slowing down advanced students is just as bad as going to fast for general level students.

Isn't it more possible these days with technologies and new teaching methods, to differentiate programs according to student needs?

Why? Grade 9 isn't that different academically, than grade 8.

It is for students..

60% of applied kids fail to graduate on time, they aren't all dropouts. Many drop or fail classes along the way and have to come back to complete a couple of courses. Many also fail to complete their volunteer hours and must wait to graduate.

The rate reported is after 5 years, so includes the students you mentioned.

And it is outrageous that these Applied students' needs are not being met.

Something is very wrong with that system.

Edited April 14, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

No it isn't for Applied students. Role modelling, challenging etc have a beneficial effect.

For a handful of applied students this would be true, but not many. Applied level classes tend to be comprised of 3 types of student. The intelligent, but lazy, the dedicated but less intelligent and those with behaviour issues or special needs. The intelligent lazy students make up a small fraction of the applied population but a fraction of those students would certainly benefit from being in an advanced class. These also tend to be the kids that move up and down between class levels and the movement tends to hinge on parental interest. Those whose parents care about their education push their kids to do the work necessary to improve others really don't care if their child is living up to their potential. Teachers manage to inspire some of the lazy kids, but without support at home it is very tough to make a lasting change.

Isn't it more possible these days with technologies and new teaching methods, to differentiate programs according to student needs?

Yes and even within current streams there is significant differentiation happening. The problem is differentiation steals time from an already very busy curriculum. Streaming allows a teacher to spend more quality education time with students and also allows more students to work at their own pace.

It is for students..

It is socially...but not academically. Students are recommended for a stream on a subject by subject basis based on their grade 7 and 8 performance. The middle school years are where students are prepared for high school and there is no streaming. The top kids are bored and held back while the bottom kids are frustrated. High school is where the separation occurs allowing more students to work at their own pace. High school is only four years, thus delaying streaming by an additional year would be a significant drag on performance.

The rate reported is after 5 years, so includes the students you mentioned.

And it is outrageous that these Applied students' needs are not being met.

Something is very wrong with that system.

81% of high school kids graduate, there is just a significant portion of applied kids that need more time to complete their courses and volunteer hours. A large portion of all kids, including advanced students, come back for a 5th year. The advanced kids add classes to help them get into certain university programs and improve marks, the lower kids to make up for failed or dropped classes.

Unfortunately school systems cannot reach everyone. The biggest issue for the 19% that don't make it is their home life. Battling poverty and the wage gap would go a long way to improving education at the bottom end.

As for the school system itself, more streams, more teachers and more support workers would help. Adding individual help or separate streams for kids with behaviour issues and special needs would improve things for the high and low end of the applied level. Unfortunately, that is extremely expensive and we are facing a double financial blow created by the boomer bubble. The simultaneous loss in tax revenue and increase in health costs as the largest demographic retires and gets sicker, means program costs across the board will have to fall.

[Big Guy]

The ideal ratio for any learning environment is one teacher per student. That does not work out financially so we have currently settled on about 30 students per class. Methodology of teaching becomes vital. The effective teacher must use language appropriate to the student level and progress according to student ability. The more homogeneous the ability of the group then the more effective and direct becomes the methodology.

In the old days, in Toronto, there were three streamed levels in Secondary schools - academic, general and basic. The Collegiate was for the brighter kids in the school district, The Technical Schools were for the generals level and the Vocational Schools were for the basic level.

When the system was de streamed, the failure rates greatly increased and for most Collegiates, their previous year failures became their largest single "feeder school". Many teachers also felt the curriculum had been watered down and bell curving became a norm. Then the system was again reorganized into two levels - academic and applied. That really did not make much of a difference in the grade 9 academic results since every parent believes their child is University bound and enrols them in the academic program - only to have them fail and shift to the applied level.

It got so bad that some schools had to move some of these students quicker. Many schools implemented a philosophy that any mark over 50% in grades 9 and 10 in an academic stream, gave you a credit in the academic stream and you moved on to the next grade. But any mark between 40 (35 in some cases) and 49 was considered a failure in the academic stream but a credit in the applied stream and the student moved to the next grade in the applied stream. Special Education became one of the biggest departments in a school.

This last shake up is being discussed because there is a disproportionate number of students from minority groups and immigrants in the applied level programs so the political fires are being lit.

The smaller the difference between the weakest member of a class and the brightest member of a class then the better the teacher is able to present a curriculum. Another factor is competition as motivation. This is most evident in enriched classes where the brightest are constantly competing with other bright ones. When all of the students in the same class are the same level then there is more opportunity for others to shine.

There are many more advantages to streaming from the academic point of view. Politically, it is not very popular when someone does a statistical analysis of applied or basic level students on age, English comprehension, nationality, demographics of home area, single or double parenting, education of parents etc.

But then again, statistics can be used to support any point of view.

Generally, I believe that the more streaming the better. A teacher is able to be more effective and the student learns easier when in an atmosphere of equal ability peers.

[jacee]

For a handful of applied students this would be true, but not many. Applied level classes tend to be comprised of 3 types of student. The intelligent, but lazy, the dedicated but less intelligent and those with behaviour issues or special needs. The intelligent lazy students make up a small fraction of the applied population but a fraction of those students would certainly benefit from being in an advanced class. These also tend to be the kids that move up and down between class levels and the movement tends to hinge on parental interest. Those whose parents care about their education push their kids to do the work necessary to improve others really don't care if their child is living up to their potential. Teachers manage to inspire some of the lazy kids, but without support at home it is very tough to make a lasting change.

Can you tell the difference between "lazy" students and those who are chronically sleep-deprived or malnourished due to poverty, family conflict and/or parental addictions or mental health problems, bullying, abuse or other personal issues?

Do you understand the learned helplessness and hopelessness that can result from such chronic issues?

Can you differentiate those from "laziness"?

Do you think that teachers calling students "lazy" is motivating for the students, or might it just aggravate their problems?

All three of the groups of students you mentioned benefit from being in a class with students of all levels of achievement.

http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/pfe-news/de-streaming-a-school-or-a-school-system/

Yes and even within current streams there is significant differentiation happening. The problem is differentiation steals time from an already very busy curriculum.

There is a new name for differentiation of programming: It's called 'teaching' now.

Streaming allows a teacher to spend more quality education time with students and also allows more students to work at their own pace.

It is socially...but not academically. Students are recommended for a stream on a subject by subject basis based on their grade 7 and 8 performance. The middle school years are where students are prepared for high school and there is no streaming. The top kids are bored and held back while the bottom kids are frustrated. High school is where the separation occurs allowing more students to work at their own pace. High school is only four years, thus delaying streaming by an additional year would be a significant drag on performance.

While your opinions may validly reflect your own experiences, you would benefit from delving into the research on this topic.

81% of high school kids graduate, there is just a significant portion of applied kids that need more time to complete their courses and volunteer hours. A large portion of all kids, including advanced students, come back for a 5th year. The advanced kids add classes to help them get into certain university programs and improve marks, the lower kids to make up for failed or dropped classes.

I repeat: The failure to graduate Stat reported was calculated AFTER five years.

Unfortunately school systems cannot reach everyone.

81% is a lousy success rate. Almost one fifth of secondary students leaving school with no prospects of getting a job - you can't even flip burgers or push a broom without a high school diploma these days, and the lifelong social costs are huge.

Do you really think that's an acceptable graduation rate?

Clearly many people don't, and in researching who the dropouts are and how to improve their graduation rates, they have identified the astronomical dropout rates of Applied students as a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

And the research is clear that those students benefit from destreamed classrooms.

The biggest issue for the 19% that don't make it is their home life. Battling poverty and the wage gap would go a long way to improving education at the bottom end.

No doubt.

But to break the cycle of chronic poverty

(or addictions or abuse etc) ... the kids have to graduate, go to postsecondary and get a decent job. Accepting and dismissing as unimportant a 19% overall dropout rate, and 60% among Applied students isn't helpful ... and it isn't acceptable.

As for the school system itself, more streams, more teachers and more support workers would help. Adding individual help or separate streams for kids with behaviour issues and special needs would improve things for the high and low end of the applied level. Unfortunately, that is extremely expensive

Individualized or small group support with destreamed classes does improve outcomes for all students.

Segregated streams do not. Read the research.

Also, employers are not just looking for hot shots with subject expertise these days. They are looking for employees who can collaborate across disciplines, work as a team member, cooperate with and support others to achieve common goals etc. Destreamed classes address those 'soft skills' better.

and we are facing a double financial blow created by the boomer bubble. The simultaneous loss in tax revenue and increase in health costs as the largest demographic retires and gets sicker, means program costs across the board will have to fall.

The social and budget costs of a 19% dropout rate overall and 60% in Applied programs will be huge: Welfare, prisons & courts, health care, etc.

We simply can't afford such poor outcomes from our secondary schools!

.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

There is no streaming from grade JK-8. Teachers spend most of their time addressing the most needy while advanced students do not get enrichment.

I'll tell you the most common difference between academic and applied students in Secondary. These traits have been built and enforced by their parents throughout elementary.

Academic students are brighter or hardworking students. They tend to come from families where their parents believe that education is important. They typically receive consequences at home for poor performance or poor behaviour. If they don't understand concepts or instructions they ask for clarification so that they can attempt the work. As a young child, the parents read to them as often as they could.

Applied students are more unmotivated, low ambition, don't care about their grades and tend to come from less supportive families who don't value education. Their parents do not typically support the teacher, and do not assign consequences for lazy or poor behaviour. These parents are also likely to make excuses for their child's behaviour instead of addressing it. The students will often choose to gladly stare blankly at a piece of paper or play on their phone until the teacher notices before asking for assistance (I don't know what I'm doing is an excuse to do nothing, not a reason to get help...) They might very well be able to do the Academic level but, they choose do less work in the Applied level instead to make school easier. These students are more likely to respond that their parents did not regularly read to them as a young child (Their parents couldn't or wouldn't put time into reading to them)

Like it or not, the parent has largely determined whether their child is Applied or Academic. We can't always blame the school system for parenting failures... All destreaming does is lump the two groups together and raise the lowest common denominator performance at the expense of the advanced students.

Edit: It's important to note that students can always enroll in Grade 9 Academic and drop down later if the want to. There is nothing forcing them into Applied. In fact, at our local high school, when in doubt that is exactly what they tell you to do. There is no harm trying Academic in Grade 9 and sorting in out after a few months and switching into applied if they have to.

Edited April 14, 2015 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I remember discussion but not actual destreaming.

.

They've done it before in Ontario in the early 90's.

Have you read about how it went?

There is a reason they didn't pursue it.

[Mighty AC]

Can you tell the difference between "lazy" students and those who are chronically sleep-deprived or malnourished due to poverty, family conflict and/or parental addictions or mental health problems, bullying, abuse or other personal issues?

Do you understand the learned helplessness and hopelessness that can result from such chronic issues?

Can you differentiate those from "laziness"?

Do you think that teachers calling students "lazy" is motivating for the students, or might it just aggravate their problems?

Teachers typically can tell if a student is burdened by the many issues accompanying low SES. Students tend to be fairly open about their personal situations in grade 9/10 and start to go silent about it as they get older. Teachers don't call these students lazy, most go out of their way to help them both socially and academically. However, the result of being tired, hungry and not cared for is the same as the simply lazy, a lack of will or interest in learning.

These students deserve and require help, though the cost is a tremendous amount of teacher time. We should provide that time, but not at the expense of advanced students. Advanced students deserve to pursue higher levels of learning, but not at the expense of lower level students. Maybe we should somehow group or stream them by relative levels of ability?

All three of the groups of students you mentioned benefit from being in a class with students of all levels of achievement.

Sacrificing the top end of the curve for the bottom does improve overall averages on standardized tests, but it's not right. We already provide far more resources for the less able and willing than we do for high achievers.

I repeat: The failure to graduate Stat reported was calculated AFTER five years.

81% is a lousy success rate. Almost one fifth of secondary students leaving school with no prospects of getting a job - you can't even flip burgers or push a broom without a high school diploma these days, and the lifelong social costs are huge. Do you really think that's an acceptable graduation rate?

Clearly many people don't, and in researching who the dropouts are and how to improve their graduation rates, they have identified the astronomical dropout rates of Applied students as a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

And the research is clear that those students benefit from destreamed classrooms.

As sad as it may seem graduation rates are the highest they have ever been. However, that has been achieved, in large part, by watering down standards for low level students and also in part through investments in spec ed and remedial/credit recovery options.

It is always the bottom level of students that drop out, right now those students are in the stream labelled Applied. To address the bottom level we need to tackle poverty and the wage gap, not lower the ceiling for top students. Students would also benefit from instruction on active study techniques in grade 7/8.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

The ideal ratio for any learning environment is one teacher per student.

In some situations perhaps, but generally students learn from each other and motivate and support each other too.

That does not work out financially so we have currently settled on about 30 students per class. Methodology of teaching becomes vital. The effective teacher must use language appropriate to the student level and progress according to student ability. The more homogeneous the ability of the group then the more effective and direct becomes the methodology.

Simpler for teachers, but not necessarily better for students.

In the old days, in Toronto, there were three streamed levels in Secondary schools - academic, general and basic. The Collegiate was for the brighter kids in the school district, The Technical Schools were for the generals level and the Vocational Schools were for the basic level.

When the system was de streamed, the failure rates greatly increased and for most Collegiates, their previous year failures became their largest single "feeder school". Many teachers also felt the curriculum had been watered down and bell curving became a norm.

It wasn't supported and implemented well, met a lot of resistance from teachers accustomed to teaching only Advanced students, and it and worked better in some places than others.

Here's a good article on the factors involved.

http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/field-centres/TVC/RossReports/vol3no3.htm

Then the system was again reorganized into two levels - academic and applied. That really did not make much of a difference in the grade 9 academic results since every parent believes their child is University bound and enrols them in the academic program - only to have them fail and shift to the applied level.

It got so bad that some schools had to move some of these students quicker. Many schools implemented a philosophy that any mark over 50% in grades 9 and 10 in an academic stream, gave you a credit in the academic stream and you moved on to the next grade. But any mark between 40 (35 in some cases) and 49 was considered a failure in the academic stream but a credit in the applied stream and the student moved to the next grade in the applied stream. Special Education became one of the biggest departments in a school.

This last shake up is being discussed because there is a disproportionate number of students from minority groups and immigrants in the applied level programs so the political fires are being lit.

That may be one issue, but with a 60% failure to graduate in the Applied stream, obviously something must be changed.

The smaller the difference between the weakest member of a class and the brightest member of a class then the better the teacher is able to present a curriculum.

Yes clearly it's easier for teachers if the class is homogeneous and high achieving.

But do all students learn better in streamed classes? Apparently not, if 60% of Applied students fail to graduate.

Another factor is competition as motivation. This is most evident in enriched classes where the brightest are constantly competing with other bright ones. When all of the students in the same class are the same level then there is more opportunity for others to shine.

There are many more advantages to streaming from the academic point of view. Politically, it is not very popular when someone does a statistical analysis of applied or basic level students on age, English comprehension, nationality, demographics of home area, single or double parenting, education of parents etc.

But then again, statistics can be used to support any point of view.

Generally, I believe that the more streaming the better. A teacher is able to be more effective and the student learns easier when in an atmosphere of equal ability peers.

That doesn't appear to be true for Applied students.

.

[Mighty AC]

That may be one issue, but with a 60% failure to graduate in the Applied stream, obviously something must be changed.

The 15%-19% of students that fail to graduate are almost exclusively the lowest performing. These are not the students that would end up rising to the academic level if given more time. These are the poor kids, the spec ed kids, the ELL kids. These families need social support to succeed. They would also benefit from the concept mastery approach I keep going on about.

In some situations perhaps, but generally students learn from each other and motivate and support each other too.

Simpler for teachers, but not necessarily better for students.

Streaming is definitely better for students as well. Streamed classes also work in both supportive and competitive groups, however more homogeneous groupings make available a greater quantity of more effective teacher time.

Yes clearly it's easier for teachers if the class is homogeneous and high achieving.

But do all students learn better in streamed classes? Apparently not, if 60% of Applied students fail to graduate.

It's easier for both teachers and students if the class is more academically homogeneous regardless of the ability level. Again, the 15%-19% that don't graduate are the very lowest students, not those on the cusp of advanced level classes.

In elementary school teachers try to place more high performing and focused/organized/independent kids in split grade classes. Each grade in the split receives less teacher time and must work on their own, without assistance, more often. The difference in student ability between the academic and applied level is possibly greater than an elementary school grade level. In a 3 - 4 split class both the grade 3's and 4's would benefit more from the increased teacher time that comes from being in a straight grade class. Streamed high school kids receive the same benefit from more uniform groupings.

[Big Guy]

To jacee - I do not disagree with you on any of your points. Get 4 educational theorists into one room and you will get 4 different theories on effective teaching/learning.

I was involved in education for over 40 years and saw educational philosophy go through 450 degrees. Personally, I tried my best for those 40 years and left the system still shaking my head, trying to understand what is it that business, parents and educational theorists thought the system was supposed to do.

It appears to me that Mighty AC and you are very interested in this issue. Good for both of you. I hope your discussions will bear some fruit.

My opinion no longer matters.

I no longer care.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Big Guy

[Mighty AC]

It appears to me that Mighty AC and you are very interested in this issue. Good for both of you. I hope your discussions will bear some fruit.

My opinion no longer matters.

I no longer care.

Ha ha...I feel like that some days even now. I bet the constant pendulum swing from one new initiative to the next becomes maddening over that amount of time. I find that even when some of the research and thinking behind a new initiative is sound, the implementation often becomes ridiculous, often ignoring very rational educational knowns. The pendulum almost always settles in the middle, but dealing with the swing is always tough for those on the front lines.

[jacee]

Again, the 15%-19% that don't graduate are the very lowest students, not those on the cusp of advanced level classes.

I'm not even sure what to make of that statement, but it's disturbing somehow.

Streaming is definitely better for students as well.

Apparently not for Applied students.

A program with those kind of failure rates will cease to exist if not improved.

.

Edited April 15, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

To jacee - I do not disagree with you on any of your points. Get 4 educational theorists into one room and you will get 4 different theories on effective teaching/learning.

I was involved in education for over 40 years and saw educational philosophy go through 450 degrees. Personally, I tried my best for those 40 years and left the system still shaking my head, trying to understand what is it that business, parents and educational theorists thought the system was supposed to do.

It appears to me that Mighty AC and you are very interested in this issue. Good for both of you. I hope your discussions will bear some fruit.

My opinion no longer matters.

I no longer care.

Me too.

Not sure why I even started this thread.

Thought I 'should' be interested I guess. Lol

I was there at the beginning ... Bill 82 ... a program appropriate for each student according to their needs and learning abilities.

30 years later and over half of Applied students are failing to graduate? :/

Ho hum ... listen to the birds

and leave it to the young.

.

Edited April 15, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Ha ha...I feel like that some days even now. I bet the constant pendulum swing from one new initiative to the next becomes maddening over that amount of time. I find that even when some of the research and thinking behind a new initiative is sound, the implementation often becomes ridiculous, often ignoring very rational educational knowns. The pendulum almost always settles in the middle, but dealing with the swing is always tough for those on the front lines.

Implementation is always the issue isn't it.

.

[Mighty AC]

I'm not even sure what to make of that statement, but it's disturbing somehow.

Apparently not for Applied students.

A program with those kind of failure rates will cease to exist if not improved.

.

Those who are poor, have special needs or struggle with the official language will always fail at greater rates. I'm not sure why that is disturbing or surprising to you. The idea you are promoting here aims to get more upper middle level kids into advanced level courses, it does not address the needs of the bottom fifth at risk of failing out. We could put every grade 9 math student in one gymnasium sized class with multiple teachers and the bottom fifth will still be the kids that fail, mainly for the reasons we have already discussed.

We already direct far more resources at this segment of students than any other; however, that doesn't mean we can't improve remedial learning programs. Though, I would like to see initiatives meant to help at risk kids graduate not come at the expense of other students.

I think the best way to do this would be a combination of gradeless, mastery learning with a multiple subject instructional period (MSIP). First of all why do we have to break classes into 5 month chunks forcing 30 kids to advance at the same rate? Those that fail to grasp a concept fall behind and never catch up. Why not force students to stick with a concept or unit until it is mastered? That way they are more capable of learning subsequent units. Basically students that fail to achieve the equivalent of 85% or higher on a unit must revisit the concept until they do.

Built in remediation time is easy to find with a team teaching approach at the elementary level, but much harder to find in secondary school. This is where the MSIP concept comes in. Rather than having four, 75 minute periods per semester, the school day is split into 5 one hour periods. Students still take four classes, but also have a daily MSIP period. During this block students requiring remediation must report to specific teachers to receive help with specific concepts. Those who are not struggling with a unit can use that time to complete homework, projects, use the library, seek out a teacher for additional information, etc.

The school system can only do so much though. Subsidized after hours language tutoring for ELLs and a mandatory living wage of say $15/hr would lead to countless benefits for society.

[TimG]

The school system can only do so much though. Subsidized after hours language tutoring for ELLs and a mandatory living wage of say $15/hr would lead to countless benefits for society.

Minimum wages do much more harm than good since few people actually make minimum wage and increasing minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available to people who can only qualify for minimum wage jobs.

[Mighty AC]

Minimum wages do much more harm than good since few people actually make minimum wage and increasing minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available to people who can only qualify for minimum wage jobs.

Since their needs are not being met, every cent of income earned by those being paid the minimum wage is plowed back into the economy, plus it improves lives, health, education, reduces social costs for the state and reduces turnover rates for employers. Even if the wage increase was accompanied by a small increase in unemployment the pros outweigh the cons for society. However, it seems that claims of a rise in unemployment may even be false.

Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?

Five Myths to Bust about Minimum Wage Hikes

If you wish to discuss the implications on education we can do that here; however, to avoid derailing this topic an economic discussion about minimum wage can continue in this business/economy thread.

[jacee]

Those who are poor, have special needs or struggle with the official language will always fail at greater rates. I'm not sure why that is disturbing or surprising to you.

60% failure to graduate (5yr) indicates a failed program.

The idea you are promoting here aims to get more upper middle level kids into advanced level courses,

I didn't suggest that at all.

Destreamed does not mean "Advanced".

It means programs appropriate for students in an integrated setting.

it does not address the needs of the bottom fifth at risk of failing out. We could put every grade 9 math student in one gymnasium sized class with multiple teachers and the bottom fifth will still be the kids that fail, mainly for the reasons we have already discussed.

One fifth is too many.

We already direct far more resources at this segment of students than any other;

We spend more health care dollars on those having difficulty than those who are not too.

however, that doesn't mean we can't improve remedial learning programs. Though, I would like to see initiatives meant to help at risk kids graduate not come at the expense of other students.

I think the best way to do this would be a combination of gradeless, mastery learning with a multiple subject instructional period (MSIP). First of all why do we have to break classes into 5 month chunks forcing 30 kids to advance at the same rate? Those that fail to grasp a concept fall behind and never catch up. Why not force students to stick with a concept or unit until it is mastered? That way they are more capable of learning subsequent units. Basically students that fail to achieve the equivalent of 85% or higher on a unit must revisit the concept until they do.

Built in remediation time is easy to find with a team teaching approach at the elementary level, but much harder to find in secondary school. This is where the MSIP concept comes in. Rather than having four, 75 minute periods per semester, the school day is split into 5 one hour periods. Students still take four classes, but also have a daily MSIP period. During this block students requiring remediation must report to specific teachers to receive help with specific concepts. Those who are not struggling with a unit can use that time to complete homework, projects, use the library, seek out a teacher for additional information, etc.

Now this sounds like an interesting way to implement a destreamed Gr 9 program, and I'm sure all students would benefit.

The school system can only do so much though. Subsidized after hours language tutoring for ELLs and a mandatory living wage of say $15/hr would lead to countless benefits for society.

Would help.

So would good nutrition ... food available to students as needed.

.

Edited April 15, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Now this sounds like an interesting way to implement a destreamed Gr 9 program, and I'm sure all students would benefit.

Streaming would benefit a mastery system as well. Watering down the content for another year, as was done in the early 90's, just holds top students back while robbing direct help time from the kids that need it.

A 15%-19% failure to graduate rate is the best it has ever been, but it could certainly be improved. Part of the problem for the, primarily, bottom kids that fail to graduate is that the applied stream is too advanced for them. Applied classes are taught in a more experiential, hands on fashion but the content can still be fairly difficult. More streams would help, but rather than just reintroducing the equivalent of the previous Basic stream, I would like to see more practical options available for the core subjects. Greater access to tech or life skills versions of math, science and English that focus on practical skills for a desired career path would certainly help.

Check out this short video of an mastery approach achieved through team teaching in elementary school. If this approach were to be used through elementary school and then met with the mastery/MSIP approach in high school we would far more students graduate with a solid set of fundamental skills necessary to be productive in society.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Mighty AC