“Grouping students in Years 5 and 6 employing banding and standardised scores: in Years 5 and 6 the classification of children will be according to a banding procedure, where children numbers permit. The criterion for grouping children will be the overall level of achievement as indicated by the annual examination results in Maltese, English and mathematics. The introduction of banding will result in classes with a restricted ability range; more restricted in fact than what one will find in a mixed ability class…” (excerpt from a letter circular dated March 18, 2014 to all heads of State primary schools and sections – DCM 75/2014).
Receiving a copy of this letter circular sent shivers down my spine. If there was anything to prove that education comes in full circles this is one of them.
Research by Harlen and Malcom (1999) clearly indicated that streaming “shows no overall effect on pupil achievement, there are many disadvantages of the practice, particularly for the low-achieving children”. Also, an OECD study covering 39 states (2012) found that countries that divide pupils into ability groups at an early age tend to have a higher number of dropouts and lower levels of achievement.
Notwithstanding such findings, in Malta we are re-introducing this practice of dividing pupils according to their so called ‘academic ability’.
Research puts the onus of student achievement on the quality of support teachers give each learner
In a letter to the editor when the first steps of the recent educational reform were taken, I had written: “The pedagogical path of this reform is not clear. While differentiation and inclusion are terms used all the time, little of what we have witnessed up to now is inclusive or differentiated, in particular as regards secondary education where only setting (yet another form of streaming) is being proposed”(The Sunday Times of Malta, February 27, 2011).
Now, we are extending this policy to primary schooling, fuelling a vicious cycle in which teachers have low expectations of students in the lower streams and, before students have a chance to develop their potential, we lock them into a lower educational environment (Beatriz Pont, one of the authors of the OECD study).
What does research say about the practice of streaming?
The research is admittedly complex. There are many variables which affect student performance; class size, ability range, teaching methods and the degree of differentiated strategies employed by teachers, availability of resources, the attitudes of teachers and the curriculum content are just a few.
So trying to come to a political solution to appease those who naively think that, through ability grouping, teachers can target instruction in order to meet individual needs more effectively is, to say the least, a short-sighted strategy.
In fact, research into ability grouping finds few studies that yield positive results. Most research is quite clearly showing that the effects of streaming are particularly negative for poor, minority students and those with limited language proficiency.
Research also shows that streaming does not necessarily assist students in the high-ability groups.
Mulkey et al (2005), reporting on a longitudinal study on mathematics achievement and self-concept between streamed and unstreamed students in the eighth year of schooling, found that students placed in high-ability mathematics classes in Year 8 had actually diminished mathematics self-concept in Year 10 and 12 compared to students from non-streamed classes.
Students in lower streams continued to perform most poorly in maths in the senior years.
On the other hand, studies indicate that heterogeneous grouping of lower-achieving students results in positive effects on students’ academic achievement, self-esteem and interpersonal relationships (Slavin 1990; Villa & Thousand 2003; Harlen and Malcom 1999).
In a briefing, drawing upon research in the US, Britain and Israel, Gamoran (2002) states that research evidence points to a number of conclusions about setting and streaming as systems of classroom organisation. Both practices are problematic because they are associated with segregation.
Whatever the effects on achievement, the issue of segregation is not to be taken lightly. He states that both setting and streaming are commonly linked with expanding inequality of student achievement.
In conclusion, research is quite strong against ability grouping and clearly shows that it is not a major factor in improving student outcomes. It also shows that it may, in fact, be very detrimental to the majority of students.
Research puts the onus of student achievement on the quality of support teachers give each learner and this is best achieved in heterogeneous groups where teachers provide multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression and multiple means of engagement.
Colin Calleja is head of the Unit for Inclusion and Access to Learning at the University of Malta’s Faculty of Education.