Activity 2: A Change in My Practice Towards Future-oriented Learning and Teaching

In our school, we recognise the importance of equity, diversity and inclusivity.  With respect to 21^st Century and E-Learning, we look to provide equity of access to the technology and the learning that can accrue from that.  We have worked through the process of providing equity devices, free software and, have invested in infrastructure that allows access to an increasingly diverse world.  This has come about as we have recognised that, “educational engagement and success for all learners is an important priority for 21^st Century schools” (Ministry of Education, 2012, p.25).  It is an egalitarian approach through involvement in initiatives such as He Kakano, Kia Eke Panuku and professional learning around Culturally Responsive Practice – to bring notions of excellence, equity, belonging, fairness, and the place of diversity to the forefront of our practice.

HOLD ON …

Can we address the elephant in our room here?

How does banding or streaming students according to academic ability promote excellence, equity and belonging?  How does it reflect diversity and allow inclusivity?  How is it fair?

Having recognised the importance of equity, diversity and inclusivity, there a growing call for the removal of banding/streaming in our school.  However, there is a small yet highly vocal group who are resistant to such changes.

My change in thinking is best summarised by the following analogy:

Imagine a 400m running race where some of the runners can start with a 50-metre head start because they are good runners.  Then imagine some of the runners must start 50-metres behind the start line because they are not good runners.

We don’t do it in athletics, why do we do it in classrooms?  Substitute “good runners” for children from two-parent, well-educated, wealthy, usually white – families.  Substitute “not good runners” for those from lower socio-economic status, ethnic minority, single parent – families.

 

Johnston & Wildy (2016) in their comprehensive 600 study meta-analysis of research into streaming/banding/ability grouping/setting/tracking note that aside from the issues of inequity and social justice, it, “has a weak link between practice and students’ learning outcomes” (p.43).  They cite Hattie (2009) who notes an insignificant effect (d=0.11) on educational attainment but notes it (streaming), “has a profound and negative effect on equity”.  Further, the practice increases the likelihood of deficit theorising when teaching a lower band or mainstream class when compared to a higher stream or top band class.  Teachers are more likely to try innovative, creative and context rich pedagogies and resources with students from higher streams or bands (Betts & Scholnik, 2000; Ansalone, 2004; Johnston & Wildy, 2016).  Hattie (2017) notes that teacher expectations of achievement is the highest influencing factors on educational achievement (d=1.62).  We should be having high expectations, equality of access and diversity/quality of programmes irrespective of which band or stream a student is in.

Banding or streaming tends to accentuate socioeconomic disadvantage and Ainscow (2016) points out that, “students from low socio-economic backgrounds are twice as likely to be low performers, implying that personal or social circumstances are obstacles to achieving their educational potential” (p.144).  We seem to be adding insult to injury.  This is not in keeping with fairness, equity and inclusivity.

Johnston & Wildy (2016) conclude their meta-analysis stating, “the vast majority of international research finds streaming to be disadvantageous for students academically, socially and psychologically” (p.54).

Reflecting on this, while it is not directly relating new views of equity, diversity and inclusivity to personal practice, I believe it is a systemic failing that consciously and unconsciously impacts on my practice and that of my colleagues.  It is personally troubling.

Unfortunately, the status quo is the status quo because it has always been the status quo.  We seem to be being equitable, diverse and inclusive when it suits.

References:

Ainscow, M. (2016). Diversity and Equity: A Global Education Challenge. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0056-x

Ansalone, G. (2004). Achieving equity and excellence in education: implications for educational policy. Review of Business, 25(2), 37–42. 

Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(98)00044-2

Hattie effect size list - 195 Influences Related to Achievement. (2017). Visible Learning. Retrieved 25 November 2017, from https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/

Johnston, O., & Wildy D.H. (2016). The effects of streaming in the secondary school on learning outcomes for Australian students – A review of the international literature. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115626522

Ministry of Education.(2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching: A New Zealand perspective. Retrieved 

from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/109306

Stoner, J. (2016). How to Talk about Politics at Work | Jesse Lyn Stoner. Seapoint Center for Collaborative Leadership. Retrieved 25 November 2017, from http://seapointcenter.com/how-to-talk-about-politics-at-work/