Yesterday, one of our friends wondered if our children were truly 'lucky' to 'escape' the streaming business. That was the first time in recent days that I've heard anything vaguely positive in relation to streaming.
It made me ask myself if the whole thing could have worked out well. After all, there is educational basis for 'streaming' - children learn at a comfortable pace, differentiated curriculum for different abilities, etc. And, realistically, how were teachers supposed to manage the range of abilities, talents, interests and behaviour of 40 children in each class? It is done, I believe, in most educational contexts all over the world - 'talent identification', 'placement tests', what have you...
Unfortunately,we can't run away from the problem of 'labelling'. People will associate certain ideas with specific labels. Singapore is so small, competitive, achievement-oriented and class conscious. The term 'foundation' will one day become a loaded one. It's only a matter of time. But of course it does sound better than 'monolingual' or 'normal'.
Take the naming of classes, for example. More often than not, the 'A' and 'B' classes are the better ones, and even if they aren't actually the best classes, you don't feel so bad if you're in Pri 4A or 5B or Sec 2/1, as compared to if you were in Pri 4L or Sec 2/13. My nieces go to schools where their classes are named 2 Peace, 3 Love, 4 Rose, 5 Ixora, etc... (different schools). I wonder why more schools don't name their classes this way. At least every class has a positive, or at least neutral, label.
Then, there is also the role of parents, teachers, the school and society. If people are going to look at certain streams, classes, courses or whatever in a particular way, then the children will inevitably pick up the negative (or positive) vibes.
I remember reading in the past about how teachers of EM3 classes felt demoralised when assigned these classes. That's really sad. Why weren't they given support in such 'difficult' assignments? Is this how the system itself contributed to the children feeling like they were the nobodys? (I also know - from hearsay - that some schools carefully select the 'right' teachers for the job. Good for those schools, principals, heads of dept, teachers and children!)
Now that we are moving on to the era of pull-out classes, I really hope the required effort is invested in learning from other countries which have had years of experience doing this, appropriately assigning teachers to the different groups of students, adequately training and supporting them for this mega differentiation exercise and taking care of both the brains and hearts of all the children.
After all, it's not just the children who have to live down certain labels who need assurance; there are also the children whose lives can be wrecked trying to live up to 'positive' labels. Even bright kids have problems.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the boys responsible for the Columbine carnage was 'gifted'...
(sorry to end on this rather morbid note)
It made me ask myself if the whole thing could have worked out well. After all, there is educational basis for 'streaming' - children learn at a comfortable pace, differentiated curriculum for different abilities, etc. And, realistically, how were teachers supposed to manage the range of abilities, talents, interests and behaviour of 40 children in each class? It is done, I believe, in most educational contexts all over the world - 'talent identification', 'placement tests', what have you...
Unfortunately,we can't run away from the problem of 'labelling'. People will associate certain ideas with specific labels. Singapore is so small, competitive, achievement-oriented and class conscious. The term 'foundation' will one day become a loaded one. It's only a matter of time. But of course it does sound better than 'monolingual' or 'normal'.
Take the naming of classes, for example. More often than not, the 'A' and 'B' classes are the better ones, and even if they aren't actually the best classes, you don't feel so bad if you're in Pri 4A or 5B or Sec 2/1, as compared to if you were in Pri 4L or Sec 2/13. My nieces go to schools where their classes are named 2 Peace, 3 Love, 4 Rose, 5 Ixora, etc... (different schools). I wonder why more schools don't name their classes this way. At least every class has a positive, or at least neutral, label.
Then, there is also the role of parents, teachers, the school and society. If people are going to look at certain streams, classes, courses or whatever in a particular way, then the children will inevitably pick up the negative (or positive) vibes.
I remember reading in the past about how teachers of EM3 classes felt demoralised when assigned these classes. That's really sad. Why weren't they given support in such 'difficult' assignments? Is this how the system itself contributed to the children feeling like they were the nobodys? (I also know - from hearsay - that some schools carefully select the 'right' teachers for the job. Good for those schools, principals, heads of dept, teachers and children!)
Now that we are moving on to the era of pull-out classes, I really hope the required effort is invested in learning from other countries which have had years of experience doing this, appropriately assigning teachers to the different groups of students, adequately training and supporting them for this mega differentiation exercise and taking care of both the brains and hearts of all the children.
After all, it's not just the children who have to live down certain labels who need assurance; there are also the children whose lives can be wrecked trying to live up to 'positive' labels. Even bright kids have problems.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the boys responsible for the Columbine carnage was 'gifted'...
(sorry to end on this rather morbid note)
Comments