End streaming in Ontario high schools?

[jacee]

Streaming would benefit a mastery system as well.

If students progress at their own pace, why is streaming necessary?

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.

It was brief and poorly implemented. It can be done better for the benefit of all students.

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.

I don't think we disagree on that for grades 10+ ... assuming some fluidity in ability to select courses at different levels rather than being locked into a 'stream'. Grade 9 though should not be streamed IMO.

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.

Awesome. Let's do it.

.

[Mighty AC]

If students progress at their own pace, why is streaming necessary?

More homogeneous groups allow teachers to reach more kids at a time. A streamed class would likely break down into 3 groups of students based on pace and ability. Without streaming a class of 30 likely becomes fragmented into 6 or more levels, thus teacher time spent addressing each student's needs is dramatically reduced.

It was brief and poorly implemented. It can be done better for the benefit of all students.

How do you avoid slowing the pace for academic kids, and the inevitable loss of teacher time for each level of student?

I don't think we disagree on that for grades 10+ ... assuming some fluidity in ability to select courses at different levels rather than being locked into a 'stream'. Grade 9 though should not be streamed IMO.

Students are recommended for specific streams based on the ability they've shown throughout their unstreamed elementary years. Grade 9 courses just build on the content taught at the intermediate level, so I fail to see any benefit in spending one more year robbing time and help from students. If the goal is to push more kids into higher levels we need to address skill gaps in the younger grades. If the goal is to increase the graduation rate we need more practical options for basic level students. Less streaming doesn't help with either goal.

[Big Guy]

I remember being in a meeting many years ago where the participants were wringing their hands about the high failure rate. One of the non-educational bean counters suggested that we could cut our failure rate by seventy percent if we made 40% the passing grade. I notice that government has often used a similar approach to improve figures.

BTW - Why do we accept that an individual showing comprehension of half the materials they are expected to know is now prepared to move on to new materials?

One more thing - the principal in an Ontario school is the Head Teacher. He/she has the final say in the final mark for any student. I have seen and I have myself changed final marks for students in senior grades where the marks generated by the individual teacher were suspect and way out of line relative to the grades of teachers of other classes of the same course. The process is not blind and the benefit of the student is the top priority.

[Mighty AC]

I remember being in a meeting many years ago where the participants were wringing their hands about the high failure rate. One of the non-educational bean counters suggested that we could cut our failure rate by seventy percent if we made 40% the passing grade. I notice that government has often used a similar approach to improve figures.

Education is always a hot political topic, hence the ongoing cycle of increasing and decreasing standards. One politician will announce tough new standards that will push our kids to the top in the world. And the peasants rejoice. A couple years later the graduation rate falls and the peasants are angry. A new politician finds creative ways to lower the standards and takes credit for a rise in graduation rates.

BTW - Why do we accept that an individual showing comprehension of half the materials they are expected to know is now prepared to move on to new materials?

We shouldn't accept it, nor should we accept that an entire class must proceed at roughly the same pace because they were born in the same year. The mastery approach is much needed.

The process is not blind and the benefit of the student is the top priority.

The mastery approach would allow us to put summative evaluations to rest. I picture a system where purely formative evaluations are used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses simply to gauge understanding and allow teachers and students to fill in any gaps.

[jacee]

More homogeneous groups allow teachers to reach more kids at a time. A streamed class would likely break down into 3 groups of students based on pace and ability. Without streaming a class of 30 likely becomes fragmented into 6 or more levels, thus teacher time spent addressing each student's needs is dramatically reduced.

How do you avoid slowing the pace for academic kids, and the inevitable loss of teacher time for each level of student?

Students are recommended for specific streams based on the ability they've shown throughout their unstreamed elementary years. Grade 9 courses just build on the content taught at the intermediate level, so I fail to see any benefit in spending one more year robbing time and help from students. If the goal is to push more kids into higher levels we need to address skill gaps in the younger grades. If the goal is to increase the graduation rate we need more practical options for basic level students. Less streaming doesn't help with either goal.

Can you show me some evidence that streaming improves all students' outcomes?

Because it doesn't appear to be working for the Applied students.

.

[jacee]

Education is always a hot political topic, hence the ongoing cycle of increasing and decreasing standards. One politician will announce tough new standards that will push our kids to the top in the world. And the peasants rejoice. A couple years later the graduation rate falls and the peasants are angry. A new politician finds creative ways to lower the standards and takes credit for a rise in graduation rates.

We shouldn't accept it, nor should we accept that an entire class must proceed at roughly the same pace because they were born in the same year. The mastery approach is much needed.

The mastery approach would allow us to put summative evaluations to rest. I picture a system where purely formative evaluations are used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses simply to gauge understanding and allow teachers and students to fill in any gaps.

I agree. And if the 'pace' of the class is no longer singular, streaming is no longer necessary.

.

[Mighty AC]

I agree. And if the 'pace' of the class is no longer singular, streaming is no longer necessary.

Having a handful of groups of eight to ten students working at a similar pace and ability level allows more beneficial collaboration to take place and more effective use of teacher time than fragmenting the class into many groups of two or three.

[Mighty AC]

Can you show me some evidence that streaming improves all students' outcomes?

Because it doesn't appear to be working for the Applied students.

Graduation rates are higher than they have ever been, but playing with stats isn't a meaningful use of our time. The reason more Applied students fail to graduate is because it is the lowest tier which then houses students with behavioral and learning challenges. Back when there were Advanced, General and Basic streams it was the Basic tier that had the lowest graduation rate because it contained our weakest students.

[Big Guy]

When there were "vocational" schools for basic level students, a daily 30% absentee rate was not considered an anomaly.

[Mighty AC]

When there were "vocational" schools for basic level students, a daily 30% absentee rate was not considered an anomaly.

The absentee rate is similar for the bottom half of current applied level classes. However, when they do self stream by not showing up, it's amazing how much more can be accomplished by the rest of the class. Meaningful whole class discussions and debates become possible, small group tasks are infinitely more beneficial.

[jacee]

The absentee rate is similar for the bottom half of current applied level classes. However, when they do self stream by not showing up, it's amazing how much more can be accomplished by the rest of the class. Meaningful whole class discussions and debates become possible, small group tasks are infinitely more beneficial.

That's nice.

But obviously the school system is failing those kids and society in general. Kid's without a high school diploma are not getting jobs and contributing to society.

I understand your perspective as a teacher of Academic classes, but I know there are teachers who have more experience with at risk students whose perspectives would be valuable here as well. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any here.

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

That's nice.

But obviously the school system is failing those kids and society in general. Kid's without a high school diploma are not getting jobs and contributing to society.

I understand your perspective as a teacher of Academic classes, but I know there are teachers who have more experience with at risk students whose perspectives would be valuable here as well. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any here.

.

All applied kids aren't at risk students, just the bottom end on that tier. I often work with these students and am routinely blown away by how far behind they are. It's amazing how many high school kids still can grasp grade 4 math concepts. Merging this kids in with students that excel is exactly opposite of what should be done, it just hurts everyone else. Saving at risk students has to start far earlier with something like a mastery approach. Right now they are just shuffled along and spit out at the end with few skills and little hope.

[jacee]

All applied kids aren't at risk students, just the bottom end on that tier. I often work with these students and am routinely blown away by how far behind they are. It's amazing how many high school kids still can grasp grade 4 math concepts. Merging this kids in with students that excel is exactly opposite of what should be done, it just hurts everyone else. Saving at risk students has to start far earlier with something like a mastery approach. Right now they are just shuffled along and spit out at the end with few skills and little hope.

Just 'shuffling them along ' until they dropout isn't good enough when there are approaches that can work.

In secondary, you have them at a time of their life when they are old enough to take control of their own lives and rise above whatever circumstances have beaten them down, destroyed their self worth and left them aimless and hopeless. If teachers also project helplessness and hopelessness, students flounder.

Secondary teachers have opportunities and tools that elementary teachers don't have.

.

Edited April 19, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Just 'shuffling them along ' until they dropout isn't good enough when there are approaches that can work.

In secondary, you have them at a time of their life when they are old enough to take control of their own lives and rise above whatever circumstances have beaten them down, destroyed their self worth and left them aimless and hopeless. If teachers also project helplessness and hopelessness, students flounder.

Secondary teachers have opportunities and tools that elementary teachers don't have..

sigh...

[Zeitgeist]

I'm going to say it like this: Streaming is out.  It may retain a place in the senior high school courses in prep for university or college, but basic neurological research and the work of people like Carole Dweck are saying to us:  You're wrong to assume anything about how smart someone is or what is possible for them to achieve.  It's quite revolutionary actually.  We used to think that basically kids brains were formed by about age 10 and the level on which they entered adolescence basically determined, by society's judgement, how smart or able a person would be for life.  We've recently learned that kids can appear quite low at one point in life and yet change dramatically.  There is no end in sight for what we can learn and achieve.  It's very idealistic sounding, but it's grounded in current science.  The challenge for teachers is to deliver curriculum in such a way that students at all levels can answer, feel challenged, and experience success at their current level, understanding, that at some point he or she may move up or down in levels.  This requires teachers giving open questions (Small) or the kinds of tasks that give every student an entry point.  It sounds easy, but it surely isn't.  That's pretty much what educators have to do.  Streaming provides homogeneous leveled groups.  Yes you can target curriculum in a certain format or at a certain level, so it's easier to teach, but ultimately it's limited. 

And yes, you're right, there will always be a need for some segregation by level for both the top performers and the students with the greatest challenges.  Research shows that streaming disproportionately impacts minorities, people from poor communities, and marginalized students.  In the end streaming is maintenance of a class system that says, "You come to me already very put together and smart: You're 'A' material" or "You can't handle that material: You're "Locally Developed" or "Essentials".  Really, should we pass judgement on students' abilities when they come to us?  If we're true believers in Growth Mindset, rate students in terms of their current knowledge in a subject area based on a particular benchmark (any level really, as all students can simply be rated in relation to that, a bell curve formed, and a determination of the average level at a given age of grade-level curriculum).  We can still have report cards and do testing, but we try to keep doors open for students as long as possible, understanding that levels can change.  I think we have to really give people time to grow to be the best they can be.  We'll be living longer, going to school longer, and working longer.  Might as well shoot for the stars.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Zeitgeist