Photo Credit: Prasan Naik
The first wave of national rankings from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) are receiving a lot of attention, but there is some very interesting data which tends to emerge from these results over time, often informative and often challenging our assumptions. This graph from the Key Findings document did just that (you may have to click on the image to enlarge it):
According to the PISA Reports, “Stratification in school systems, which is the result of policies like grade repetition and selecting students at a young age for different “tracks” or types of schools, is negatively related to equity; and students in highly stratified systems tend to be less motivated than those in less-stratified systems.”
This is the latest contribution in the forever-long debate about the streaming of students. It is interesting to see the negative relationship regarding motivation. The equity issue could be understood — as students are streamed, those requiring more assistance tend to not get it, and lower level classes may receive less experienced teachers and fewer resources. But, it is the findings around motivation I find very interesting. I have often heard (and have likely repeated) that enriched/advanced classes allow high achievers to work with similar learners, allowing another group of students to be the high flyers in the ‘regular’ classes — opportunities they may not have had without the streaming. The PISA results tend to counter this. It is interesting to see that Canada is low in streaming internationally, but high in equity and motivation. The current push in British Columbia and Canada, around personalization and differentiation, embraces the idea that there are different levels of learners learning together in a classroom.
I also recently read an article from author, commentator and sports contributor, John O’Sullivan, Our Biggest Mistake: Talent selection instead of talent identification which Alison McNeil shared on Twitter. This article takes on a similar topic, in the sports arena. In it, O’Sullivan describes the differences between those who select talent and those who identify talent:
Talent selection is the culling of players with the current ability to participate and be successful in events taking place in the near future. Talent identification, on the other hand, is the prediction of future performance based upon an evaluation of current physical, technical, tactical and psychological qualities. Talent selection is pretty simple; talent identification is an art. One yields great results today; the other builds elite athletes and winning teams for the future. Our current “win at all costs” youth sports culture promotes talent selection. When a coach is pressured to win by parents or a club, or when he or she feels the need to win to serve their own ego, that coach becomes a talent selector. When you are focused on talent selection, you are picking athletes to help you win now, and cutting ones that will not. You are looking at current athleticism, technical ability and traits to help achieve short-term success.
O’Sullivan concludes “the emphasis on winning prior to high school is destroying youth sports.” And while he is making his argument to a United States audience the same debate occurs in Canada. While the Long Term Athletic Development Stages are being adopted by many sports organizations, it is also being scoffed at by others who see the de-emphasis on competition at young ages as a terrible sign of the times. It is interesting to take O’Sullivan’s writings, and substitute “learner” for “athlete” and “student selection” for “talent selection”. Enriched classes are very much like our private, tiered sports programs. I have heard similar arguments for streaming young people in sports as young as five, as I have with enriched classes — they allow the high flyers to play with others like them, and allow others to excel at a lower level without the high flyers present.
O’Sullivan makes the argument that U.S. (and I would say Canadian) sports programs are in deep trouble unless there is a radical shift away from talent selection and toward talent identification. I see this as a similar argument that the PISA results are making with learning around the world — those who select and stream talented students instead of identifying and personalizing learning are bound to have less equity and lower levels of motivation.
This is another example of how efforts in our schools like removing letter grades at younger ages, and focusing on learning, are similar to efforts in our community sports to remove the keeping score and tallying of winners at young ages. While some argue these efforts are reducing standards and rigor, research is showing we need to look at youth development differently.
Perhaps sadly, much of the evidence for improvement in schools is counter-intuitive and thus challenging for educators and extremely difficult for parents. You provide one example of new high-flyers in “mid-streamed” classes. Another is the challenge of the evidence for cooperative learning (when properly done) and parental views that my child should not be wasting time teaching others, that is the teacher’s job. Similarly, the evidence on reduced class size, which has its most powerful effect only with changed teaching strategies. And then of course there is the preference for one [comforting] letter (A, B…) over pages of anecdotal reporting and student-centered conferencing on a child’s learning… We need more attention to evidence and how to communicate effectively with parents and broader communities.
Thanks Ken – I appreciate you adding these pieces to the conversation. And yes, these are not simple ideas to discuss so we do have to find ways to engage the larger community. I am very interested to see the conversation around report cards right now. Those who have experienced “the new way” seem very pleased but the larger “public” is very skeptical.
Reblogged this on The Tech-Enabled Educator Network.
Hmm, several really interesting ideas. I am commenting on 2:
First, I think the distinction between ‘selection’ and ‘identification’ is very important. So many ‘late bloomers’ are passed over in a ‘selection’ process and as such, society is the looser. A thought:
* What is ‘academic talent? And how might we identify such talent? If we say ‘testing’ that leaves us at ‘selection’.
Second, I have been doing some PD work in one of the Asian high-performing PISA countries and streaming from grade 6 on is the norm. The competition is absolutely fierce to be selected via government exams to ‘elite’ schools. Equity and motivation issues aside, the issue of learning for the purpose of being streamed into an ‘elite school’ dominates the education landscape. It is a good example of ‘doing without learning’.
It is interesting that so many countries are continuing to act in a way that might feel right, but runs counter to the evidence. Your first point is very interesting – how do we get into the talent recognition game and out of the talent selection game? Even in areas like gifted education, where we identify students but typically adapt them and leave them in the regular program, we do so with a test – which is based on the selection model.
What are the characteristics of a “late-bloomer” that we could recognize in grade 2 so to ensure they are supported.
Appreciate the comments Susan.
Reblogged this on LiterateOwl.
Interesting overview of this assessment tug of war Chris. thanks. I’m quite fatigued by the entire argument frankly. I’ve seen it all. I’ve been a teacher and a volunteer coach for 40 years and a competitive athlete, so I understand the sentiments entirely.( as I know you do) It’s been my experience that educated people that love kids, pretty quickly figure out that assessment, achievement and excellence is tricky ground. We love Olympians but we don’t wish to sacrifice the school yard or sandlot for it. So the wise and empathetic coach, manager or organizer soon builds a hybrid system if they can. They provide a groundwork for many and opportunity for a few.If fairness, access and equity are embedded with quality resources and dedicated time- whether sports or school – some level of optimal growth can occur. We can see examples all over Canada. It’s only when political agendas tint the lens that the sky falling is always gloomy. – Al Smith Kelowna
This hybrid system is so challenging to build and maintain. I think schools and sports club almost always want to do as you say – provide many options for all based on access, equity, and quality and then create additional opportunities for some in many different areas within this system – easy in theory but so hard in practice.
But yes, you are right that we have schools and sports clubs across the country doing this everyday – and fortunately for you and me – we both work in places that are doing this.
Always great to have your voice Al.