So, after reading this week's readings, I'd love to hear from you all about how you think a) department structures, and b) streaming, affect the ways you interact with students, the ways you teach, and the ways you learn or learned as a student.
I went to high school in Ontario when it was streamed into Basic, General, and Advanced. And at the time, I remember noticing that kids from different neighborhoods tended to be streamed differently. I also sort of recognized that there were socioeconomic differences between the neighborhoods. But it all seemed normal and natural to me - probably because I was in the Advanced group so it didn't seem unfair.
As a teacher, department structures definitely affected the way I interacted with students. I only ever knew the other math teachers - but then again, I was only a student teacher so not really part of the school. But I really only had access to math teachers and their opinions about the students and about appropriate teaching methods. Streaming also played a big part because the teachers I was working with had very definite ideas about what was appropriate for the high vs. low streams. Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in teaching differently to different classes of students. What I have a problem with is that a) these assumptions about what is appropriate tend to be made before teachers even know their students - you just know, for example, that it's an 'applied' or an 'academic' class, and therefore b) teachers seem to place a lot of faith in the streaming process and in the idea that students learn better when they are with others 'like them.' I'm not convinced that this is true. Other studies of tracking have shown that students tend to learn more in the higher tracks - what with higher expectations and more rigorous work.
I'm curious about how department structures and streaming affect(ed) your teaching and learning experiences.
I’ve never taught at a secondary school so I can’t contribute to the discussion of department structures. However, I can contribute to the discussion about streaming through a personal experience.
ReplyDeleteMy family moved to Canada when I was 12 years old. I was placed in a Grade 6. My twin sisters were 11 years old and should have been placed in a Grade 5 class. However, similar to the students in the Dei et al. chapter, my sisters were placed a full grade back. No explanations were given.
When the twins were in Grade 8, the school felt that the eldest twin was struggling so much that she should attend a technical school. A technical school only offers basic and general classes. Around Grade 10, my sister started to get 90s in her general classes and wanted out. She decided she wanted to be a teacher but the technical school wouldn’t allow her to accomplish that goal. She needed to transfer to the nearby collegiate (general and advanced classes). Unfortunately, the ‘system’ did not allow this. She ended up graduating and earning her ECE certificate at Centennial College. While she’s happy working in a daycare, she often make comments about how ‘going to that technical school screwed everything up”.
My sister’s experiences are always in the back of my head when I attend system-wide meetings about the transition between Grade 8 and 9. I appears to me that there is this ‘obsession’ with getting placements right. But I wonder if this is even possible. My sister went ‘boy crazy’, according to my father, in Grade 8. She spent hours getting ready in the morning and on the phone in the evenings. Doing her homework or studying for tests was not her priority. Yet that year set in motion a path that she couldn’t get off.
So I wonder:
- Do we really need to stream kids?
- If we do, do we stream too early?
- Why do we make it so difficult for kids to change classes?
More importantly, when did school stop being about meeting the needs of the kids and more about the teacher having the ‘right’ kids to teach?
Your story about your sister really emphasizes a point against streaming - what happens to those students who may 'bloom' late within a subject? These are the students who are punished by streaming. I know this will come across as strange, but math was not my strongest subject, but luckily I had a mum who felt that I should never limit my options who encouraged me to continue with it, and lo and behold I now teach it. I wonder how many parents as well as students are not aware of the ramifications of decisions such as those made by students mentioned in the Dei et al chapter? How can we ensure that all are educated about this - these are clearly life altering decisions made by really young people who may not be looking that far into the future to realise that they are potentially limiting their options.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to question why is it so difficult for students to switch - is it due to the lack of money? Lack of desire? Lack of follow-through (i.e. by those who should be monitoring student achievement/goal)? This is a question that needs to be answered or dropping-out will continue and that is not a future I think anyone of us would like to see.
Hello Indigo,
ReplyDeleteI posted my blog before reading yours. And my prior comments were directed to the math coach's comment.
To answer your question with regards to how streaming has affected my learning experience, I have to say not by much. I cannot remember my school offering general courses, just academic or enriched. We were never actually pushed into enriched courses per se, or not from my memory. In fact I cannot even remember how I got into the enriched French class. There never seemed to be what was described in Dei et al's chapter regarding an 'us vs. them' attitude between those in the academic as opposed to those in the enriched. No one seemed to lord it upon other, nor did it seem to limit anyone's university options for those not in the enriched courses. Perhaps we were a unique situation, lucky enough not to have teachers say the kind of things as seen in Dei's chapter? Or perhaps as I said in my post, maybe because we were all taking academic courses none of us were really at risk of not achieving our goals? This is probably the most likely scenario as I think about it more.
With respect to teaching, again streaming for me has been mostly academic vs. enriched, so a unique perspective overall. Although I do remember in my first high school teaching experience, streaming was actually implied and actually not done with a particular subject area. The 'bright' students were those who took a second language course (similar to what Sisken & Little mentioned in their note about French Immersion) because taking a second language was considered a challenging and more lofty route. These students were encouraged later to take the more challenging science and math courses, whereas students who didn't take a second language followed a less academically challenging route. This delineation was never explicit, but you certainly felt the difference in expectations by the teachers of these students that was quite surprising.
Of course all was thrown into a tail-spin when in between my first and second year, the gov't decided that all students had to take a second language in Grade 9. The so-called streaming came to an end, but the expectations didn't change as quickly.
This is my second year teaching at a public high school in Richmond Hill. My school offers academic, applied, and essentials streams for most courses. These names change to university, college, and workplace, respectively, for grade 11 and 12 courses to reflect the paths students will take after high school. I was recently part of a grade 8 night when grade 8 students and their parents visited the school and the different departments to learn about the grade 9 course offerings. I fielded questions all night about the difference between applied and academic courses, and I emphasized more than a few times that students could take grade 9 applied math, then move into grade 9 academic or grade 10 applied math. I kept telling parents over and over again that just because students take grade 9 applied math does not mean they can't switch to the academic stream later on. I explained the extra course they would need to take; I tried to be hoenst when I said it wouldn't be easy to switch, but doable.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these articles about streaming and how they limit students' opportunities, reinforce social structures and lower teachers' expectations of students, I feel conflicted about the system I teach in. On the one hand, having 30 students in a class, trying to differentiate instruction to each of them and supporting the students who are struggling with extra help before, during and after school, I find it very difficult as a second-year teacher to do more. I certainly can't imagine what my grade 11 functions (math) classes would look like if I had students who "should" be in workplace or applied - I imagine they would be lost simply because they don't have the foundations from grade 10 math nor the ability to keep up with the pace of the course (the grade 11 course is well known as the most jam-packed math course in the current curriculum). On the other hand, I think I agree with the belief that students will learn more and better when they are in a class with more advanced material and higher expectations. I'm just not sure how that would work with class sizes the way they are and resources being limited in the public education system...as Dei says to some degree, the education system needs to enable teachers to make changes but without the system backing us up, I'm not sure how teachers will be able to effect changes on their own.
At the same time though, where is the balance between pushing students to do the best they can and having unrealistic expectations of students who cannot do something (or do not want to do it)? My parents held the belief that I could be a doctor if I wanted and I pushed myself and made myself miserable through high school and two years of university trying to prepare for medical school, until one day I finally said "enough!" and switched to what I really wanted to study, math and English, so that I could become a teacher. I guess the difference in this case lie in who makes the decision...I did have the option and opportunities available to go to medical school, while streaming limits the options of so many minority students (although not according to the StatsCan article...but that's for another post).
I agree, Vivien, that having to differentiate instruction for a class of 30 is very difficult. However, our K-8 colleagues do it for every subject they teach, not just Math.
ReplyDeleteI think our Grade 9 teachers are in better position to differentiate instruction for students because they are specialist teachers.
Also, can someone comment on the difference between the Grade 9 Applied and Academic curriculum. Upon brief inspection, they seem very similar. If the Applied classes are hands on and predicated on real life applications, why are the academic classes not taught the same way? Do students in Academic classes not benefit from hands on learning and real life applications of concepts??
BTW, I'm not directing this to only you, Vivien. This is for everyone to chew on :-)
devika
Two things...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments/questions Devika. I had similar thoughts so I will not repost a repeat, but to just emphasize K-8 do the DI every day and my class is of 30 with 6 IEPs (9 last year).
Also, my learning experience with streaming definitely affects the way I interact with my students, the way I teach, and the way I (when I taught grade 8) filled out the forms for students to choose courses for grade 9.
The Dei article was pretty much the story of my high school experiences and I can still hear all those same quotes being repeated. "its really really hard", "you should take basic", "not many of you will go to University". I also had similar thoughts as Sandy (in article) when I realized "they just push [you] into the basic courses...you don't realize that until you get to grade 12...you can't do nothing with that..." p.118.
Similar to math coach's sister I ended up with my ECE due to the streaming process as well, but being very determined to do what I wanted to do from the very beginning I persisted.
I still get emotional when I remember the meetings in the guidance office first with my parents, who had no idea of the garbage they were being told, and then later on my own trying to fight the system.
My parents were told just put them (all four kids) in applied and then they can switch later if it is too easy. I remember being bored out of my mind in the applied classes and when I got tired of it and went to the guidance office I was told, "it will be hard work, you will need to speak with the teacher, I think its too late etc."
As we approached graduation we were told (according to the wisdom of our guidance counsellors) what choices we should make for our careers and I was told cosmetology or fashion design. When I told the guidance counsellor I wanted to teach I was told that would not be possible, although I had nineties they were mostly applied classes. I remember trying to get information on how to change all that so I could do what I wanted (to teach) and hitting brick wall after brick wall, re-taking classes, taking extra courses and getting no help or real guidance on how to correct things until I gave up and just went to college.
It was in college that I found an ECE instructor who guided me on what to do (courses, letters and tests to write) to get in to University and follow "my" plans for my future.
Back then I believe a lot of the issues involved racism (in hindsight) that went along with the streaming, but today I think the streaming still affects life chances for a lot of students from too early inline. Making course decisions at the age of 13 should not be detrimental to a child's future. There should be ways for the students to either change paths or be given options to take to make-up the class where there are gaps. There also should be more classes with DI (differentiated Instruction) so that all students can benefit from learning with and from each other.
I try to fully explain the process to students and parents, tell them of my experiences (the difficulties in changing later), tell them its easier to go 'down' if they find it too difficult after really trying than to move 'up' if it is found to be easy and I advice them to be aware of their options and to understand where each option leads.
I have mixed feelings about streaming.
ReplyDeleteWhy I dislike streaming:
1. I really dislike the segregation of teenagers into "applied" or "academic" students. They are just people, going through a phase in their life. Who they will be next year or as adults is not necessarily determined by who they are at that given high school moment.
2. School is subjective. What we value in school is not always reflective of life. Implicit in the streaming process, is the idea that one form of education is better than another.
3. There are often more behavioural, absentee and non-academic issues in applied classes. Does grouping a marginalized and sometimes difficult group of students together compound problems?
4. Students in lower streams are often in the one stream based upon his or her work habits, attitude and behaviour. Many of these issues are more related to the maturity of the student as opposed to his or her ability. It is known that different people mature and grow at different rates. I strongly suspect that students in the lower streams may not be at the same level, in terms of physical, mental and emotional development - streaming them at this point is unfair - it doesn't mean that they will not eventually catch up, but it does mean his or her career options will be limited
5. Related to the previous point - In math, there are more males in the lower streams.
Why I like streaming:
1. It is easier to work with students with differing abilities when they are grouped together. Differentiation occurs within all classes, but it can be time consuming and is not always effective.
2. There are options if someone is struggling academically for them to get a high school degree.
3. Some students struggle with certain subject matter. A student can still excel in one academic area and take a more suitable academic level in another. Not everyone wants to be a physicist.
4. Students of all academic levels can achieve success.
5. Working at an appropriate level can ease anxiety regarding the course material.
Although, it may appear so, I'm not against streaming. I just think that it is highly likely there are many problems in how streaming is accomplished.
A few other things:
I have seen students transfer between the different levels. When going from a lower to higher stream, the change has been successful when the student has a good work ethic, although there is often a dramatic change in his or her average in the course. I have also seen students who have went from a higher level to a lower level. This often has the effect of reducing the anxiety and stress with taking the subject. Further, if the student has a good work ethic they are going to experience a lot more success.
Finally, with all the conversations about the different streams it is implied that some careers and jobs are better than others. This is certainly true in financial terms, but financial compensation is not the only measure of success. Not everyone is going to be a doctor, or professional athlete, or musician, or caterer or whatever? There is dignity in all work, and finding a career path that is right for someone is more important than finding the most prestigious job.
Just a couple thoughts on the problem with meeting the needs of all students in one classroom. My high school was very small. There were usually no more than 16 students in a class, and by the time I was in grade 12 there were a total of 7 in my grade. It's mostly an academic school, and everyone in my class took all academic classes. Not everyone got straight A's in every class, but we all managed to pass.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started volunteering in other high schools and practice teaching, I started thinking about how my high school classmates would have done in a larger, more conventional school. I think that some of them probably would have had a lot of trouble in an academic level class of 30 students. Because we had around 10 or fewer students in our class throughout all of high school, teachers were able to make accommodations to meet all of our needs. However, in a class of 30, I could see this being incredibly difficult. I am sure many students who are in applied or essentials courses in large high schools would be able to understand the material in academic classes, but not with 29 other students, at least half of whom were picking up the material much more quickly and getting bored.
I don't think it was only small class size that contributed to my classmates' success in school. We all came from families who were invested in our education and who had the time and resources to support us. However, I think that class size does go a long way in contributing how much teachers can support their students. If we continue to have larger caps on academic classes than on applied and essentials (I was told this was true - I could be wrong but it certainly fits what I saw when I was student teaching) then we won't be able to give students the help they might need to reach high academic standards.
I understand that there might be a negative connotation to streaming after reading the article and seeing how it can be racialized, gendered as well as how it can be targeted towards homosexuals. I feel that the article successfully captured how teaching can effectively cater towards increasing interest and performance of students and therefore making it unnecessary to stream. I however having done my majority of high school education in India where streaming is absent can see how it can be useful which this article fails to cover. I feel that sometimes the lack of streaming can render an effective teacher ineffective. Although i am in favour of differentiate instruction and inclusive classrooms I have seen how lack of streaming can endanger the growth of students as well as teachers. I have witnessed students who have specific learning needs feeling incapable and losing confidence being in regular classroom and failing to compete with students who cruise through with ease. I have also seen teachers not being able to cope up with the needs put forth by all the students in their class and making haste decisions which are not carefully thought through under pressure. I am sure with a system in place of streaming it can prove to be ineffective if the people involved in the process are not fully aware of their responsibilities and have full information of the students’ background, strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteThis where I feel that Balkanization/ departmentalization although not the one secludes or impermeable, might prove to be helpful. I did not agree with the article is stating that “ attempts to restructure secondary schools that supplement rather than substitute for existing structure of subject departmentalism are likely to prove deeply problematic and perhaps even self-defeating” because any change has to be slow and subdued, anything that overhauls the system can put everything off balance and cause chaos. Especially since the secondary school system is complex the only way to bring about any change would be supplement rather substitute. I feel that the article by Siskin and Little is farfetched as it trying to accomplish unity within a complex system. I do feel that their intentions are fair but the examples of two schools stated are insufficient and not well investigated.