Streaming

Streaming or ability grouping is a method that is used within schools as a form of segregating students into different groups based on their abilities (Zevenbergen, 2001). The issue of streaming or ability grouping is one of the oldest and most controversial issues within the educational system (Slavin, 1987). Streaming or ability grouping has many meanings; however, the most general is that it involves grouping students for instruction based on their ability or achievements so as to enable the reduction of their heterogeneity (Slavin, 1987). The advocates of streaming believed that this method of instruction would be beneficial to students as they are being exposed to such content that matches their understanding and abilities, which then in turn allow students to be adequately scaffolded in order to develop their competence (Slavin, 1987). Extensive research has been carried out to discover the effect of streaming on students with some claiming that is has a positive effect whilst others believe it to be quite the opposite (Chanan, 1970). This paper will aim to address the issues that arise in regards to streaming and how they relate to inequitable outcomes for students in accordance with the social justice goals of the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999).

When streaming was first introduced at the turn of the century as a way of individualising teaching within larger schools, teachers and educational researchers alike were eager to implement the process (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). Educators saw ability grouping as a way of ensuring that those children who were gifted would receive a quality education (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). The main aim for grouping students is to provide them with instruction that matches their different levels of understanding and as a consequence, this enables the students to progress on to greater levels of ability, which for some may simply mean completing higher education (Slavin, 1987). There have been many studies carried out in regards to whether or not streaming actually has any benefits for a student in regards to their achievement levels (Slavin, 1987). Hoffer (1992) found that ability grouping actually helped those students who were advanced, harmed those students who were in lower streams and overall only had a small effect on students.

One of the major arguments in favour of streaming is that it enables teachers to adjust their pace, style and content to suit the needs of particular ability groups (Boaler & Wiliam, 2001). Teachers believe that the practice of streaming enables their teaching to become more

effective as the curriculum outcomes can be more easily targeted based on a student’s level of understanding, which in turn makes lesson planning and delivery more efficient (Zevenbergen, 2001). It is believed that streaming tends to create greater homogeneity amongst students and in turn enables more whole-class teaching (Boaler & Wiliam, 2001). There is also a strong belief within the education community that streaming is an advantageous way of grouping students especially those who are of high ability (Boaler & Wiliam, 2001). It is believed that each school has its own method of organising students into either a higher or lower stream (Barker Lunn, 1970).

It is more common for streaming to be found within secondary schools; however some primary schools also adopt this method of academically grouping their students (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007). Those secondary schools that put ability grouping into practice organise their course subjects into high, middle and low classes (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007). It has been found that secondary students who are in higher streamed classes will take more academic courses and will generally cover more challenging material and at a faster pace than those in the lower streams (Gamoran, 2000). On paper, streaming may seem to be an efficient way of teaching students based on their ability or achievement levels, in reality however, research has shown that separation via ability will benefit those high-achieving students, but cause problems for those students who are low achievers (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007). Research shows that those students who are in the low streamed classes will likely receive lower-quality instruction and have teachers who portray negative attitudes towards them (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007). For these students, this means that they will generally end up viewing themselves as less able and will act in accordance with these beliefs (Eder, 1981). Zevenbergen (2005) believed that ability grouping helps to create a learning environment that becomes an internalised habitus. Bourdieu coined the term habitus as a way of describing one’s sense of self and beliefs (Zevenbergen, 2005).

In the many years since research has begun on identifying and addressing the advantages and disadvantages of streaming on a student’s overall schooling experience, it is conclusive that ability grouping has gone from being seen as an effective way of instructing students to being viewed as a process that denies quality education, especially to those

students who already come from a disadvantaged background (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). Barker-Lunn (1970) found that the process of streaming not only separates students on the basis of their academic performance but also influences inequality amongst social classes. Research tends to favour the belief that streaming actually stigmatises and spreads the weaknesses of those students who are already at a disadvantage in regards to socio-economic status and race (George & Alexander, 2003).

There has been much concern raised for those students who come from low socio-economic status (SES) families as it is clear that these students are being discriminated against by excessively being placed into the lower streams (Slavin, 1987). Evidence suggests that those students who are placed into lower streams are found to have more disruptive behaviour, more off-task talk and have very little interaction with their peers which is essential for supportive learning (Slavin, 1987). For students who are in classrooms such as these described, this means that the teacher will spend more time dealing with the interruptions and student misbehaviour rather than delivering quality lessons (Gamoran, 2000). Teachers of the lower streamed classes are usually not as experienced, qualified or better prepared as those teachers in a higher stream (Gamoran, 2000). Evidence suggests that those students who come from low SES families are generally taught differently to those students who come from a higher SES family (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007). This means that those children who receive a lesser quality education will tend to have inferior academic skills which leads them to having limited