Bill and Christie-Lee Hansberry
‘Streaming’ is a dirty word in education, but so was ‘phonics’ once upon a time. We think that general beliefs about streaming (ability grouping) deserves a rethink. What if we consider ability grouping from a standpoint of targeted reading and spelling instruction? Does differentiation offer what it promises, or is it a poor remedy for low-quality teaching and high-variance curriculum? And, given the huge variance of basic literacy skills in most Australian classrooms, can we really teach all students reading and spelling at grade level?
I’m Streaming has a dark past. In the 1950s and 1960s, IQ testing was used to organise (stream) students into set groups who would receive different academic programs from that point on. Groups in the upper stream would have access to highly academic content, the best teachers and even the best resources. At the same time, lower-streamed students could receive the opposite, which had a devastating and compounding impact on the futures of many. Like it or not, IQ tests have incredible predictive power for academic achievement, but they should never have been used in this limiting way. Research in the 1960s and 1970s highlighted the obvious problems that resulted from IQ-based streaming. Educators became understandably wary of any deterministic practice that could lock students into an educational trajectory based on test results. The long-gone days of IQ streaming in schools casts a long shadow, causing apprehension among educators today about any form of ability grouping, and standardised testing for that matter. The Facebook feed of any educator is full of quotes hyperventilating about how ‘children aren’t test scores’. We agree, they are not.
——
Related:
Madison’s ongoing one size fits all experiments, English 10
