Skerries streams from day one tho and stream on the results from an entrance exam. Entrance exams are the equivalent of the 11+ in the uk where the general consensus is they don’t work as the children are too young to ascertain a proper long term assessment of their potential, the same applies to streaming based on entrance exams, the child could.have an off day, the child could be stressed about the exam and it does not give the child an opportunity to work towards a goal. It also identifies and labels children amongst their peers as smart and not so smart…and we all know kids can be very cruel. It is the one big issue with skerries cc that I don’t agree with, otherwise its an excellent school.

Replying to my thread as it won’t let me reply to you. I absolutely agree with you; streaming is a terrible practice. I remember doing my “entrance exam” at 11… hmm I believe I was more concerned with my Super Nintendo at the time and less concerned with anything school related.

I just wanted to put something positive about teachers in the times when all we do is knock public servants :)

Gold star for you :)

You need to interpret the article. Streaming does indeed improve the performance of the brightest students but it also drags down the weakest and even more so. It is then accurate to say by extension that weaker students will negatively impact on stronger students. This much is obvious.
Knowing this, do you end streaming for a more egalitarian outcome or do you reward hard work and intelligence and maintain the status quo? I’d opt for the latter.

The article says that children in higher classes do not make the corresponding gains….therefore kids in higher streamed classes do not do better if they are.not mixed.

@Niamh Byrne They’re not saying that students don’t make gains when streamed into higher level classes, it’s just saying that they don’t make the corresponding gains i.e. the fall for lower ability classes is more than the gain for higher ability classes.

I don’t agree, school should prepare you for the brutalities of the real world where everyone isn’t equal and you are segregated based on how good you are.

Obviously can’t argue with the results since they appear reasonably scientific but I am surprised by the results.

“Students assigned to lower ability classes tend to do much worse under streaming while those in higher ability classes do not make the corresponding gains – leading to a fall in average student performance.”

As I said, you need to interpret. The author is telling you the higher ability classes are improving but not to the same degree that the the lower ones are declining.

I know what class you’re getting streamed into!

I’ll figure this out for you G Charles. The title of this article is Streaming in schools is bad for students.

It’s not good for every kind of student.

Off to the bottom class with you too Linda! The headline refers to the average student but not to the brighter students. Scratch the surface of these articles and dig a little deeper. It’s very rewarding!

I know when I was in mixed ability classes I was bored, bored, bored. I would stop paying attention after the teacher’s third or fourth go explaining something I’d understood perfectly well when I’d first heard it. And then, surprise surprise, I missed things.

To be honest, this leaves me in a moral quandry. It’s clear from the article that lower-performing kids would do better in a mixed class, but it’s also clear that though the higher-performing kids don’t gain enough to make up for that loss, they do do better when streamed.

So, if I have higher-streamed kids, do want the school to do right by them, so they don’t end up crawling the walls with boredom, or do I want the school to do right by the average student? I don’t think I’m selfless enough for the latter.