Mixed or streamed?

Lino Bugeja in his article, The Case For Streamed Classes (July 31), concludes that the only way forward to safeguard the high-flier is streaming. He also states that, "were it not for the state selective system many high profile professionals...from working class background would not have been so successful".

Even if Mr Bugeja's contentions were correct, streaming cannot be justified. What about the rest of the school population? Whereas due to streaming the high-achiever may, perhaps, be given greater attention, in a mixed-ability class, through inclusion, besides the high-flier the slow learner is being catered for as well. Obviously no system is foolproof unless it is well-equipped with all the necessary tools and skills and this applies to a mixed-ability class as well. What makes learning effective is its learning environment and so I cannot understand how Mr Bugeja contends that "whole-class teaching where the teacher stands at the front of the class and gives lessons involving all the pupils is in the best interest of the child and education in general". About which child are we talking? A number or an individual? That teaching a mixed-ability class requires more skills and greater support than teaching a streamed class is a fact. But in no way can one conclude that "whole-class" teaching is more effective especially when dealing with children in the primary section.

Teaching is not synonymous with learning. In primary schools where the child is still developing at his/her own pace individual attention is needed and for each child to learn, including the gifted child, interaction between teacher and student is essential. This can only occur where teaching is differentiated. I fully agree with Mr Bugeja that "our nation cannot afford to lose gifted children" but neither can we afford to lose those students who are uninterested, unmotivated and unreachable because of an unsuitable learning environment.

We have to admit that an educational institution that provides a holistic approach to education and is inclusive needs to organise itself well to be able to obtain all the necessary support. There are wide differences in children's needs and the school environment should be such that it tries to address such differences. We have, no doubt, to improve the learning environment in mixed-ability classes. Surely the number of students should in no way exceed 30 and where possible brought down to 25. Another important factor for individual attention to be more effective in mixed-ability classes is the duration of the lesson. In basic subjects like English, Maltese and mathematics - here I am referring mostly to the primary section - I think that lessons should be of one hour duration. This gives the teacher time to deliver the lesson and interact with the students while they are working hands-on exercises. It goes without saying that the teacher has to be skilful, well-equipped and well-supported. When referring to inclusion and holistic education we very often speak about the support needed for the child without alluding to the needs and support of the teacher. There might be instances, for example, where collaborative teaching is more beneficial.

In an inclusive school the teacher does not work in isolation. Whereas in the traditional system a class teacher would have been "able" to cater for all the students in one's class in the primary section, in a mixed-ability class with a holistic approach to education, besides the class teacher there would have to be the subject teacher, the support (complementary) teacher, the facilitator and other support staff. Thus, more collaboration and teamwork is needed but the outcome is more child-centered and more effective.

Mixed-ability teaching, if well-performed, in no way abandons the gifted child, on the contrary it enriches the child's perspective and makes him/her realise what a complex and differentiated world we live in.