Parenting & Family

TDSB head wants to phase out streaming (academic/applied class tiers)

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 13th, 2018 8:47 am
[OP]
Newbie
Jan 26, 2018
13 posts
4 upvotes

TDSB head wants to phase out streaming (academic/applied class tiers)

A three-year plan to phase out academic streaming for Grade 9 and 10 students is among key changes being proposed by the head of the Toronto District School Board.

The controversial practice of separating students into academic university-bound courses versus applied-level classes has led to “inequitable outcomes” and limited pupils’ options for the future, TDSB director John Malloy says in a new report.
https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/edu ... hools.html

This is crazy. High school will become a complete joke if they get rid of streaming. Mixing trouble makers and low achievers with high achievers will just drive mediocrity. The students who do poorly now with streaming will do poorly in the future without streaming.

This equality of outcomes nonsense is going overboard.

Note: this thread has nothing to do with media streaming
Last edited by titaniumtux on Jan 28th, 2018 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added footnote to title and post
24 replies
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 4, 2001
10506 posts
223 upvotes
No wonder people send their kids to private school if they can at all afford it.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 30, 2011
2824 posts
603 upvotes
LONDON
Next stop is to get rid of AP classes in the name of equality.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
12295 posts
1181 upvotes
Fing idiots. Another reason to move out of the city.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
15226 posts
1907 upvotes
Toronto
juniorminter wrote:
Jan 28th, 2018 8:37 pm
https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/edu ... hools.html

This is crazy. High school will become a complete joke if they get rid of streaming. Mixing trouble makers and low achievers with high achievers will just drive mediocrity. The students who do poorly now with streaming will do poorly in the future without streaming.

This equality of outcomes nonsense is going overboard.
All he's proposing is going back to the system most of us grew up under. Back when I was in high school you had regular classes and you had advanced classes, but you chose which ones you took based on the challenge you felt you could face. This system of dooming a kid to poor education for all eternity based on what they did in grade 9 is the dumbest s*** I've ever heard of. Kids grow and mature during high school, and an older kid can easily ace an advanced class even if they were immature and unfocused at 14.

University has gotten so easy these days and throws so much assistance at kids that anyone capable of staying awake can pass, so it's not like the 'academic' kids are really all that intelligent anyways. They'd get eaten alive if they actually had to face a proper academic challenge without the aid of computers, crib sheets, and all the other BS they're allowed to get away with nowadays.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Aug 29, 2011
3145 posts
919 upvotes
Mississauga
When I was in high school we had streamed classes: basic, general and advanced. The system seemed to work. Then they destreamed grade 9 and the result was a disaster: the more keen kids getting bored and while the more challenged kids felt left behind. Then they brought back streaming again.

Make up your frickin mind.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 30, 2010
1618 posts
220 upvotes
Welcome to "the government is run by inept tools incapable of making good decisions" part 19375723e999.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
12295 posts
1181 upvotes
mrweather wrote:
Jan 28th, 2018 10:43 pm
When I was in high school we had streamed classes: basic, general and advanced. The system seemed to work. Then they destreamed grade 9 and the result was a disaster: the more keen kids getting bored and while the more challenged kids felt left behind. Then they brought back streaming again.

Make up your frickin mind.
If this goes through I can see a lot of kids jumping to TCDSB or even moving out of the city.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
1285 posts
186 upvotes
Toronto
eldiablo wrote:
Jan 29th, 2018 12:37 am
ummm....that was a bit of a satirical humour.
Hahaha Ha Hahaha! :facepalm:
Banned
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3977 posts
1367 upvotes
Toronto
juniorminter wrote:
Jan 28th, 2018 8:37 pm
https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/edu ... hools.html

This is crazy. High school will become a complete joke if they get rid of streaming. Mixing trouble makers and low achievers with high achievers will just drive mediocrity. The students who do poorly now with streaming will do poorly in the future without streaming.

This equality of outcomes nonsense is going overboard.
That's the thing. A lot of the kids in applied courses aren't trouble makers and shouldn't be low achievers. Black males and kids from low income neighbourhoods are twice as more likely to be streamed into applied programs than academic - but there are studies that show they did just fine in the early elementary levels. Something is happening to those kids, making them switch from being achievers to what you describe as 'low achievers'. That's not necessarily to do with aptitude, its because of stigma, poor resourcing, awful guidance support at the elementary school level and frankly, a generation of parents who also didn't go on to higher education and don't have the social or financial capital to help their kids get there either. It ends up as part of a cycle of poverty. If streaming was removed, and actual supports were put in to help the kids who needed it (accommodations, whatever) then I think it would help for sure. As long as people see the kids in applied courses as effectively garbage - as many of you guys who posted here seem to think - then they'll continue to struggle by the barriers we put in front of them. Something has to change.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3490 posts
372 upvotes
Toronto
juniorminter wrote:
Jan 28th, 2018 8:37 pm
This is crazy. High school will become a complete joke if they get rid of streaming. Mixing trouble makers and low achievers with high achievers will just drive mediocrity. The students who do poorly now with streaming will do poorly in the future without streaming.
I think it's important to specify that the planned de-streaming is for Grades 9 and 10 only.

Mixing trouble-makers with high achievers certainly may drive mediocrity, but it's not a foregone conclusion that people in the applied stream are trouble-makers.
wirebound wrote:
Jan 29th, 2018 9:06 am
That's the thing. A lot of the kids in applied courses aren't trouble makers and shouldn't be low achievers. Black males and kids from low income neighbourhoods are twice as more likely to be streamed into applied programs than academic - but there are studies that show they did just fine in the early elementary levels. Something is happening to those kids, making them switch from being achievers to what you describe as 'low achievers'.
I think this hits the nail on the head. There are a lot of kids in applied courses that shouldn't be there. There are probably also a lot of kids in the advanced stream (or academic or whatever they call it now) who shouldn't be there. Whatever mechanism is in place to stream kids entering Grade 9 isn't working. Better to wait a year (two years may be overkill) so that teachers can better figure out where a kid should be.
Deal Addict
Dec 27, 2013
1719 posts
442 upvotes
Woodbridge
The entire secondary curriculum needs to catch up. There are way too many specific skills that are thrown at kids one after another with very little time to apply them in any meaningful way. Applied classes were supposed to be for more real-world, hands-on skills that could be applied to the workforce or some sort of diploma/certificate program, such as a trade or programming. Using math as an example, these kids don't need to know how to translate a parabola three units to the right because, well, who really needs to know how to translate a parabola three units to the right unless you plan on taking university math courses with very specific career paths? Unfortunately, what the system turned into was all the "good" kids were in the academic stream and all the "bad" kids were in the applied stream, and the kids who either couldn't handle or didn't need to know the academic material were stuck choosing between a class full of behaviours and distractions, or a class with material that they don't need to know. I haven't read into the research that the TDSB is using to support this possible course of action, and until I do, I'll reserve judgement; however, I will say that the current system could use some sort of change.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 15, 2015
1104 posts
144 upvotes
Markham, ON
The articles from what I read make me feel like there are a lot of parentzilla.

When I was a student, my parents had no say with respect to school because I think my parents forgot to read the school newsletter or participate in PTA. However, I participated in special programs sometimes because teachers recommended me due to good grades ;)!

Who spends the most time with your children when you are at work or in school? The teachers and fellow students :P
Newbie
Jan 3, 2018
34 posts
12 upvotes
Good point wirebound. Well said. Thanks for bringing up this point. While we might not have experience this, it does exist and hopefully this is a step to dealing with this systematic bias.
wirebound wrote:
Jan 29th, 2018 9:06 am
That's the thing. A lot of the kids in applied courses aren't trouble makers and shouldn't be low achievers. Black males and kids from low income neighbourhoods are twice as more likely to be streamed into applied programs than academic - but there are studies that show they did just fine in the early elementary levels. Something is happening to those kids, making them switch from being achievers to what you describe as 'low achievers'. That's not necessarily to do with aptitude, its because of stigma, poor resourcing, awful guidance support at the elementary school level and frankly, a generation of parents who also didn't go on to higher education and don't have the social or financial capital to help their kids get there either. It ends up as part of a cycle of poverty. If streaming was removed, and actual supports were put in to help the kids who needed it (accommodations, whatever) then I think it would help for sure. As long as people see the kids in applied courses as effectively garbage - as many of you guys who posted here seem to think - then they'll continue to struggle by the barriers we put in front of them. Something has to change.
Moderator
User avatar
May 8, 2009
5993 posts
2314 upvotes
45.420833°N, 75.69°W
I'm split on the topic. I think the school boards should offer tiered schools. Some schools should have a mix of applied and academic. Some schools should remove academic classes, and for students who can't make it through academic level, either transfer to another school, or if it's just for one subject, perhaps as a one-off allow those students to be pooled into one class for the one subject they need under applied level (2nd language/math/science/geography/etc.). Some schools could even do mixed classrooms (say lower end schools), where the better students, although in the same classrooms as the applied students, get handed over more challenging exams, etc. This could also allow better learning opportunities for these kids as they can even participate in teaching the material to their peers. Schools may even offer scholarships for students who take their classes at academic level when most of their peers are at applied level, preventing brain drain and enabling their post-secondary education. Obviously biggest schools would inevitably offer applied and academic.

I would imagine my suggestion is no cost-effective solution, but I think it'd really give learning a boost.
eBay profile| Motorola phone. Linux on 2xcomputers. Brew beer & wine @home.
DUCA thread | Simplii Account Linking | Make CCTS Claim | Max on Koodo Referrals Thread

Top