|
A few years ago I made a holy vow that I would never write about streaming and our selective educational system… And from time to time I find myself breaking this pledge. I am mow reiterating my views on the matter.
I must confess that this may be prompted by a change of heart mainly because in the late 60s I contributed considerably to the national debate on education reform being massively aligned behind the MUT-backed movement for the elimination of streaming and the introduction of comprehensive schooling. Regrettably, in due course, we had to admit that the complete abolition of streaming in state primary schools where the majority of teachers were (and still are) in favour of some form of selection by ability was a dismal failure. Although the concept of non-streaming (as well as comprehensive education) is theoretically sound and has been adopted with relative success in northern Europe and Scandinavian countries (where education outside the state system is extremely expensive and consequently not so pervasive), this aspect of private education which allows for “creaming off” cannot be ignored. The state schools, regrettably, are faced with a high percentage of unmotivated parents/children and streaming is a necessary evil.
By all means let us strive to have a policy of equal educational opportunities for all children irrespective of their social and financial background but it is well to remember that equal opportunities for all is not synonymous with equal education for all.
The streaming debate goes on forever and recently the more evocative word “segregation” was used. Undoubtedly, every teacher knows that some children are more intelligent than others; consequently in an unstreamed class children will have to be divided into groups. So the children are streamed or “segregated” within the class instead of within the school. However we are often assured that group teaching based on ability is not “concealed” selective teaching simply because the children are not physically segregated. But they are! And this is where the whole nonsense about segregation breaks down.
In my opinion, all children, whatever their attainment and aptitude, should be provided with equal opportunities of making the best of themselves. Then give every child the opportunity to excel. Otherwise we run the risk of depriving the child who is clever and has the ability and destined to become a leader in his/her particular field by bringing him/her down to the level of his companion, who although equally deserving of our attention, would never achieve in a life-time of effort what the other could do. The nation would, in the long run suffer from this egalitarian nonsense.
Lino Bugeja is retired educationalist.
The world is a kaleidoscope. We are a colourful varied lot, each with particular strengths and weaknesses.
Our diversity is our strength. Different people generate different ideas. They generate different solutions. Globalization is pushing us more towards each other. Isolation is not the name of the game. Not even in Malta. Especially not in Malta.
The choice is very simple. We either opt to educate children in a supposedly homogenous world that does not exist, if ever it existed, or we opt to take the reality of diversity and learn how to make the best out of it; not because there is nothing we can do about it, but because diversity is richness.
The streaming debate is basically a choice between the obsolete and the relevant.
The proponents of streaming give the impression that this selection is objective. But is it? An exam is not a measure of what the students are capable of. It only takes consideration certain aspects of what education should be all about; of what children are all about. Modern educational psychology acknowledges that there is no such thing as intelligence. Education today acknowledges multiple intelligences. Exams on the basis of which selection occurs, only consider a small part. Exams? Indicative perhaps. Absolute? Not to any stretch of the imagination. They are simply a subjective instrument on the basis if which we are making claims of objectivity to justify selection.
Then there is the moral issue. Research has shown time and again that streaming, especially in the primary school has the knack of perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Students labelled as bright perform well; recognition does wonders to their self-esteem. As to the rest, the reverse is the case. Students internalize second class treatment and respond accordingly. Their perception of self worth comes crashing down. No wonder that their education does too.
Children have different learning patterns. But they are complimentary. Ways to go about it abound. The Let-Me-Learn programme, to mention just one, is based on the recognition of these differences through a differentiated pedagogy that caters for all. Cooperative learning is another way of providing the tools and attitudes to make diversity work. Streaming does away with such enriching opportunities in the interest of an education which fails to grow out of the status quo.
Inclusion (not only in the reductionist sense of disability) DOES work. Look at the situation in Finland. Their system is considered to be top notch. And it is fully inclusive. Not only have they survived. They have made a success of it. Indeed we do not even need to go that far. Instances of good practice in inclusion abound even locally. We simply need to give them more visibility to convince the sceptics.
Inclusion is about the future. It is about the present.
Mario Mallia is Alternattiva Demokratika spokesperson for Education and a Head of School.
|
