Toronto Star Report on Destreaming is Inaccurate

On Multiple Levels

Image via the Globe and Mail

By Igor Stravinsky (Teacher, Commentator)

On Monday, November 13, the Toronto Star published an article entitled “Ontario High Schools Need More Support for destreaming, Principals Say”. The article outlines a report from the advocacy group People for Education, and does a decent job of describing the slow-motion highway pile-up that destreaming in Ontario has been (and continues to be) but maintains multiple fictions which are sure to perpetuate (even exacerbate) the painful situation for years to come:

1. “Everybody agreed this was a good thing to do”: False. Most teachers had major reservations and a good number were totally against the idea, which had been tried before and failed. Teachers know that while destreaming appears to keep doors open to all pathways for all kids, when tried back in the 1990s it did not result in significant numbers of kids who were underperforming in elementary school suddenly upping their game and finding their way to the university level senior courses. On the contrary, teachers found they were unable to teach anyone at a high level as they struggled to help the lowest functioning kids who did not have the prerequisites for the courses. Then, as now, the new courses were thrown together in a rush and then foisted upon hapless teachers and students with no significant resources having been allocated to improve chances of success. In fact, success criteria were not even provided. That is because the reasons for destreaming are not educational but rather ideological. Black and indigenous kids (especially boys) are not proportionally represented in the advanced level classes and this flies in the face of the operating mantra of the schools system, which is based on Critical Theory. As such, the system's raison d'etre is to ensure “equity”- equal outcomes for racially defined groups, not high achievement or providing opportunities for individual students to strive for excellence. 

2. Destreaming will work if you reduce class sizes: Well maybe, but you would have to reduce class sizes drastically (just to get the same results you were getting before) and that is simply not going to happen due to the prohibitive costs involved. Current sizes for the destreamed classes are 26-30 students. To allow teachers to teach, in essence, multiple lessons at once, you would need to drop that to 15-20 students. That would mean hiring a lot more teachers. Even if you could find those teachers (good luck!) that would be way too costly for even a progressive government to consider, forget about the Conservatives. The public would not support such a massive increase in the education budget. And for good reason: The quality of education would not be any better. It would be a colossal waste of money. There are ways you could improve the system substantially, for everyone, for a fraction of that cost. But this is about improved, race-based optics, not more learning. 

3. Destreaming will work if there is sufficient teacher training: How, exactly, do you train people to teach a large class full of kids with vastly different levels of knowledge, skill, and yes, intelligence? The kids will vary drastically in terms of their readiness to learn, for example, In a math context, some will need drilling on basic arithmetic while others will be ready to learn algebra, and you'll have everything in between. Teaching multiple lessons at once is a lousy pedagogical practice. It means you can only spend a short period of time with each group of kids. Invariably, the most advanced ones will be left to fend for themselves since they have the ability to work independently. Everyone loses. That is why teachers reported that what little “training” was provided (mostly after the new courses had already rolled out) was Critical Theory indoctrination sessions intended to convince the teachers that destreaming was the way to go, with no instruction whatsoever provided on how to actually teach these large, academically diverse classes. When teachers complained, the “training” was discontinued. 

4. Decades of research shows streaming adversely impacted low-income and Black and Indigenous students as well as those with special needs: Yes, the evidence has been clear for a long time that Black, Indigenous, and kids with special needs underperform at school. But there is absolutely no evidence to prove that anything the school system is doing has anything to do with that. Teachers have no way to influence the condition kids are in when they arrive at school every day. Sociocultural conditions at home vary drastically, and poor conditions of these types are clearly correlated to the identity groups who, in aggregate, are underperforming. What is needed is studies geared to look at sociocultural common denominators, across racial and cultural lines, which promote academic success, and then take steps to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, all kids have the conditions at home that will allow them to come to school ready to learn. Kids with “special needs” have learning issues and disabilities. Of course they will underperform, as a group. Some can learn a great deal, given needed supports, but many simply cannot. People are not created equal.

5. Ontario was the last province to do away with streaming in grade 9: This very misleading statement is intended to make destreaming sound like a universally accepted practice when, in fact, it is not practiced exclusively anywhere. What has actually happened here in Ontario is a major reduction in the amount of streaming, but streaming has not been eliminated. True, most students in grade 9 are now taking the new destreamed courses, but there are still locally developed courses for the lowest functioning kids and there remains a wide range of regional programs such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Regional Arts, etc. all of which are self-contained. Students accepted into these programs are usually cohorted together in all their classes. These are the only remaining high level classes where teachers can set a high bar and students can strive for excellence. Not surprisingly, parents are desperate to get their kids into these programs. Looking at other provinces, a quick Google search reveals that most of them also offer options such as those mentioned above and some offer options similar to what Ontario was offering previously. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, grade 9 students choose between “general” and “academic” math in grade 9 in addition to being offered a variety of regional programs. 

In spite of the overwhelming evidence that destreaming has been an abject failure in grade 9 (again), the Ministry of education is doubling down and extending it to grade 10! Some school boards are even talking about extending it to grade 11. To my knowledge, no one else is doing that. If you are aware of it, please mention that in the comments.

According to the article, the Toronto District School Board has been “destreamed” in grade 9 for eight years. That should be plenty of time to show whether any equity objectives have been achieved. Are there now a more proportional number of Black and Indigenous kids taking higher level courses in grade 12 and going on to university? If so, in which university programs are they enrolling? Are they more proportionally represented in the most challenging programs (such as engineering)? Are they equally successful in these programs? I would bet a pile of cash that the answer is “no” to all of that, even though admission standards are lower for Black and Indigenous kids. The point is no one is asking these questions. There's a good reason for that.

The activists knew, right from the beginning, that the destreamed classes would not produce more learning. When told that destreaming, absent the infusion of massive resources, would actually reduce learning they essentially said “we know, but we don't care”. They were desperate to hide the evidence that, overall, Black and Indigenous kids are worse students than whites, and especially keen to hide the exceptional achievement of Asian kids (on average) which puts the lie to their claims of “white supremacy” in the system. Destreaming has an equitable feel to it. The optics are good. They can say everyone is in the same classes doing the same learning. For CT activists, feelings and appearances are what really matters. When pressed, they said “we need destreaming now- we can ask for more resources later”. Yeah good luck with that. 

The claim often made, which is reiterated in the Star article, is that streaming closed off options for the future for Black and Indigenous kids. This is clearly bunk. There was nothing to stop any kids from taking any course they wanted to before, you just had to demonstrate the prerequisites. And if you didn't have those prerequisites, there were pathways to attain them. 

School success is tied to a multitude of factors in the student's personal life which are beyond the scope of the school system to address, many of which are cultural. If the goal is to close the achievement gap between racial identity groups (a dubious endeavor) social services will have to be greatly expanded to close the gaps between what underachieving and successful kids are getting at home. You'll never get the activists on board with that. And to be fair, not many other people would go along with it either.

How can we stop destreaming? Not easily. Destreaming, such as it is, was introduced in Ontario for ideological and political reasons, so only a change in the ideological position of the Ministry of Education and school boards, or the election of a new government inclined to foster the pursuit of excellence in education could get rid of it. Otherwise, no amount of evidence of destreaming's deleterious impact on learning will budge it.  

Last time around, destreaming was introduced by a Liberal government. When the Conservatives came into power, they did away with it. This time around it is the Conservatives who have passively allowed destreaming to take hold. So, even if we get a change of government, it is unlikely it will be eliminated.  

It seems we're stuck with it.

___

Thanks for reading. For more from this author, read Remembrance Day is a Conundrum for Ontario School Boards

Also, for more evidence of the ideological indoctrination in Canadian education, read Yes, schools are indoctrinating kids! And also, Yes, The University is an Indoctrination Camp!

There are now two ways to support Woke Watch Canada through donations:

1) By subscribing to the paid version of the Woke Watch Canada Newsletter for - $7 Cdn/month or $50 Cdn/year

2) By making a contribution to the Investigating Wokeism In Canada Initiative, which raises the funds necessary to maintain and expand Woke Watch Canada’s research and investigation into Dysfunctional Canadian School Boards, Education, Indigenous Issues, Free Speech, and other areas of Illiberal Subversion and the Canadian Culture Wars.