To stream or not to stream

Today, streaming is in the dock. All kind of accusations are being brought against it. No educator in his right frame of mind is to be caught hankering after it. Yet, this type of classroom organisation has been with us since the 1850s. With the exception of a short break between 1971 and 1974, we have had streaming, under one form or another, till the present day.

In 1948, after the passing of the Compulsory Education Act in 1946, a sub-committee drew up a report on the primary schools, recommending, among other things, "that some attempt should be made at working in divisions in class where the classification of children by age, desirable in itself, entailed disparity of intelligence".

The unstreaming of schools in Europe started way back in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1970, Malta introduced secondary education for all. However, a clear division was made between the already existing grammar schools and the new area secondary schools. The first attempt to unstream schools came in 1971. Education circular 227/71 stipulated that "Formal mid-year and end-of-year are not to continue" and, one year later, circular 82/72 decreed that "The secondary schools' entrance examination is abolished and children will move automatically from primary school to an area secondary school".

Just a year after the introduction of comprehensive education, evidence that not all was well in the state of education in Malta emerged with letter circular 12/73, entitled Special Classes For Children Of Very Low Attainment.

These children were to be placed in "a special class" with "a special programme in Maltese, English and mathematics" aimed at making them literate and numerate; what was termed at the time as "educational first aid".

Joe M. Falzon, officer in charge of the Test Construction Unit, declared in his Suggestions For Setting Up Of Special Classes For Slow Learners In The Secondary School: "It is obvious that pupils who are illiterate and who have not mastered the basic number skills are not deriving any benefit from attending normal classes, especially insofar as the basic subjects are concerned. It does not seem advisable to expose such children to the full range of subjects on the secondary school time-table".

A year later, in 1974, letter circular 1/74 formally re-introduced end-of-year examinations. The declared aims of the circular were: a) to motivate students; b) to supplement continuous assessment; c) to help orientation of children into options and courses and d) to facilitate streaming and setting if the school decides to adopt them.

A few years later, in 1981, comprehensive education was shown the back door and circular 68/81, entitled Entrance Examination Into Form I, II, III, IV, V Of the Junior Lyceums, ushered in again streaming and the 11+ examination and grammar schools re-emerged under the guise of the newly set up junior lyceums. And we were back where we had started in 1971 but with the residue of a traumatic experience for students and teachers alike.

I am convinced that today all those who are advocating the abolition of the 11+ examination and of streaming are inspired by egalitarian motives and have the welfare of our students at heart. However, before committing ourselves to this drastic change in our classroom organisation, I think we should stop and ask ourselves a few questions. As, for instance: Have our teachers the right attitude towards this change? Are they ready to accept it and put it into practice? Does our heavily-loaded curriculum permit the teaching of a mixed-ability class? Would not such a curriculum demotivate and frustrate the low-ability student? Would it not undermine his self-confidence? Is the state ready to abolish the common entrance examination into Church schools to avert the student stampede to private schools we experienced in the 1970s? Is today's emphasis on specialisation compatible with mixed-ability teaching?

Are we going to take the necessary action to ensure that teachers do not stream students in class instead of within the school? Would not low-ability students stand in awe of the high-flyers in their class? Feeling eclipsed by the high flyers, would not there be the temptation for these low achievers to resort to attention-seeking behaviour by adopting obstructive and destructive behaviour in class to the detriment of the high achievers?

To stream or not to stream is certainly not a straightforward decision.

The success of the unstreaming of schools depends on whether teachers, the education practitioners, are ready to adopt it in their classroom (Barker Lunn, J.C., 1970).

When the draft of the national minimum curriculum was published in 1998, the abolition of streaming and the new method of assessment were among the themes that provoked most controversy among teachers. Has their attitude changed since then? Are they ready to rise up to this new challenge?

Let us hope that they have so that what happened in the 1970s will not repeat itself.

Mr Mercieca is a former Assistant Director of Education.