P.L Dokument imqieghed fuq il-mejda tal-kamra tad-deputati fis-seduta Numru 138 tas-7 ta' April2014 mill-onor Joseph Cassar, MP.

Transcription

1 IT-TNAX-IL LEGISLATURA P.L Dokument imqieghed fuq il-mejda tal-kamra tad-deputati fis-seduta Numru 138 tas-7 ta' April2014 mill-onor Joseph Cassar, MP. Raymond Scicluna Skrivan tai-kamra

2 :.:: -t 'L-UNIVERSITA TA' MALTA IL-FAKULTA TA' L-EDUKAZZJONI ID DIPARTIMENT TA' L-!STI!DJI TA' L EDUKAZZJONI UNIVERSITY OF MALTA Msida- Malta FACULTY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STUDIES..1 Press Release-S April 2014 Open letter from members of the Faculty of Education to the Minister for Education and Employment Wo, the undersigiled Faculty of Education staff, endorse, support and welcome the declared goals of the Ministry for Education and Employment's Framework/or the Education Strategy for Malta However, we are pel]llexed and perturbed with the policy reversals advocated in the Department of Curriculum Management's Letter Circular DCM 75/2014. This Letter Circular requires all State primary schools to group pupils by month of birth from Kindergarten 1 to Year 4. It also requires schools to classify and allocate to classes, pupils in Years 5 and 6 according to a 'banding', a well-known fonn of streaming procedure on the basis of their standardised results in Maltese, English and Mathematics. At the same time, schools are required to 'exert some degree of gender balance' in the allocation of pupils to classes. Banding is a 'less differentiated form of streaming', as the UK's Department for Education and Skills' literature survey on ability g~ ouping (Kut11ick, Sebba, Blatchford, Galton and Thorp, 2005, states. Many experts consider banding on the basis of standardised tests an imperfect method which cannot be carried out at school level where numbers are too small for it to work reliably. Banding manipulates results to allocate pupils to classes on the basis of some critel"ia, not transparently revealed in the Circular, unless gender is one of them. There are three worrisome elements here, The first is that in a selective system, such as the one that is being advocated, the younger bom children will not have the oppmtunity to benefit from peer letrrning with slightly older peers, bom in the same year. They will find that teachers have lower expectations ofth<'lll. Their teachers are unlikely to cover the same curriculum as the teachers of their 'older' peers. They will therefore be far more likely to be engineered into the lower bands or streanls in Years 5 and 6 and thereafter. This negative effect has been studied locally and intemationally and is very well known. The second concern is to do with bandin!ystreaming itself. It is because of repeated and reliable studies both locally and intemationally about the negative effects of streaming on individuals and on national achievement, that barely three years ago and as pa1i of a wider and costly reform., culminating in the National Curriculum Framework, that the Minishy of Education, Employment and the Family (2011) abolished streaming in the primary school. There was a wiqe consultation process regarding this, which though contested in some qumtcrs, was consensually accepted by stakeholders. There has been too short a time to detenuine whether the I\wKap ll1d Dlpartlment!Head of Depadment: Dl' Duncan Mcrcioon, M.Ed.(Irwlusive Education), 1 M.Ed.(Phllosophy uf EduCiltion),Ph, D, T~l: (356) , FAX: (356) Emal!: duncun.me11;:icca@um.edu.mt

3 2011 ohan!,l:e has been beneficial to the achievement of individual pupils and to national achievement. We have over thirty years of local and intemational research which strongly advocates against ability grouping of the type proposed. For example, the Canadian Education Association with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education issued a statement in 2010 ( which states that &,>rouping by ability 'is associated with worse overall student performance'. In his book "Increasing teacher effectiveness" (UNESCO, IIEP, nd edition) Lorin Anderson mentions a number of key findings regarding homogenous versus heterogeneous classrooms that raise eoneem. In homogenous classes both more and less achieving pupils encounter difficulties. Some higher achievers may do marginally better than had they been in a heterogeneous group, but other research indicates that this comes at great cost to them, and contradicts other valued educational goals. The perfom1ance of less academically able students in homogeneous classes tends to be below that of this latter group in heterogeneous classes. There o.re grellter dispo.rities in achicvcm<a~t. B;irnc and Smyth's (2010, Republic of Ireland study finds that those in lower stream classes were almost 13 times more likely to drop out of school early than those with a similar profile in mixed ability classes [p.68]. The OECD's (2008) 'Ten steps to equity in Education' ( recommends that the t1rst step to reduce school failure would be to 'limit early tracking and streaming and postpone academic selection'. The factors which have led to what the Minister of Education and Employment calls 'a crisis' in educational achievement, are in large part attributable to the selective system of the recent past, in which grouping by date of birth and streaming in the primary school were major pillars. This most recent reversal of a barely three year old policy does not allow the educational system to serenely adjust to a system which ensures a high level of achievement of all pupils. On the issue of 'exerting' a gender balance, whilst this would be advised in a nonselective system, in a selective system such as the one proposed, and given girls' higher achievement, both locally and internationally, it can only mean that despite their better achievement, girls will be allocated to classes with pupils of lower achievement. If banding is to be 'fair', that is, the allocation of pupils to bands is on the basis of their raw somes, not 'standardised' to demote those in the category of higher performers, then it will have the most negative effects on boys, who least benefit in groupings of less achieving pupils. In the systen1 proposed by DCM 75/2014 one would either have negative effects on girls by demoting able girls to 'exert' gender balance, or have negative effects on boys by replicating the large classes of boys in the lower streams that we had up to three years ago. In this proposal of the Department of Curriculum Management, neither boys nor girls can be well served at the same time; one would have to choose who to 'sacrifice'. It appears that rather than wait for the mixed ability and gendex balanced classes to support the improvement of boys, girls are going to the victims here. There is another serious social justice issue. It is known that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, for example, from low socio-economic and cultural groups, or pupils in out of home care, are those most likely to be in the lower bands. II-Kap tad.. Dipartimcnt/Hcad of Department: DrDurwan Mereiooa, M.&l.(Inclusive Education)) 2 M.Ed.(Phiiosophy ofeducntlon),ph.d. Tel: {356) ,21J33903~6 FAX: (356)21: dunonn.meroicoa@um.edu.mt

4 This reproduces fi om one generation to the next, the type of disadvantage that Malta is actively trying ro preve11t. Moreover, immigrant children without one or both of the two official langnages will likewise be placed in bands of the less able, unless the 'standardisation' exercise is designed to distribute them across bands. This would also be the destiny of those with learning diftlcultics. Either they would be allocated to the baud of the less able, as raw scores would place them. Or, if banding will be stretched such that they will be dispersed across the bands of the year group, then the question arises, why have banding in the first place? It is only the mixed ability classroom that will reduce achievement gaps between individuals in any one school. Whilst we appreciate that this relatively young system may have been imperfectly introduced,,riven other problematic and contradictory policies, we are convinced that with better planning, there will be better results. Thus, for the sake of all children in State schools, and with the goal of raising individcml as well as national achievement, we hope that the Depm1ment of Curriculum Management will withdraw the two directives in Letter Circular DCM 75/2014 forthwith. We reiterate our support for the Framework for the Education Strategy fbr Malta Indeed isj,ecause we are also committed to the declared goals of the Framework that we argue that fbe Circt~lar should be withdrawn. signed -.L) ( e~\. l>t. re~ _ 1'(~{. 1~\JIXtf\ JJR (:k.m!l.~ ~ i\r~l-.0 J#-Ylk\~ ct.v A... J:vm 3

5 . ' 1-UNIVERSITA TA' MALTA IL-FAKULTA TA'L-EDUKAZZJONI ID-D!PARTIMENT TA' L ISTUD)l T A' L-EDUKAZZ)ON! UNIVERSITY OF MALTA FACULTY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STUDIES "'""r) ~ <...c.,.j9"'""~"' r,.j 1 \;-;<10 tai:./.)'il o-.j ()P.. <:lli-hl!j & C~l.t'lt XRW P~M~-. ~"'" l,.~t.!fmt& rl'ree f,i q 5bE> 0 d7l ~f\f:111j ~~~e-~ :ttr~:2'5'ltvt :})~ ~(\fn~t:- Ut7-Lt\?>-P'T MI\TtlS S'Ci 1-lCE 't vt1. 1!ION TeCHNICAl ellocii Ofl'l. f.y!. 0:Jv.cii'T1%/ '?ruote5. ~ r'm'~ Sm;,..,e o/ 1tiiH. <ffu,u~ \i?'p/. Of ;li<z/j',.! (;1-#0ttAt,U -:) r# c''~b<.lca"!on DfGfi ~ 1-I.J'ii'l.! I ~ z, -~~~~~ v eft 0 f f'1..'\ j' />c1' I) UrtJ v:u ~t r rj ev c.. Cf\'17 <:>"' )De. )Yt%t.zk ~:.;""' be. :t>o~ ;;f't~/!)-. \(~ M< 0-tflte<"' fwv~g ~ tlhkaj) tod~dipartimt:'uf/heud ofdi!pill1hj(.'1ltdr Duuc~n Mcrcie.::u, M.Ed.(!nch.l~ve Education), M.Ed.{Phllos.ophy ofeduc:~tk.tt),ph.d. Tel: (;t$612~40 2-3S2, fi FAX; (3$6)213'17938 Emilil: d\lllcan.tuerr.lcca@um.cdu.mt