Many of us can recall a time when our teachers organized additional math and language activities outside of regular school hours, during lunch or recess. These activities were meant to challenge and enrich us. Students who were interested could attend and we had a great time learning and working together. But have these extracurricular opportunities disappeared from today’s public schools? Do modern public schools still provide similar extracurricular opportunities for our children? Are there still chances for academic enrichment and fostering passion in our children?  

Meeting the diverse educational needs of students and fostering challenge is crucial for driving excellence in the classroom and both are equally important. Research reveals that pushing students beyond their limits positively impacts critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and understanding of complex concepts. By encouraging students to perform at higher levels, educators urge them to always strive for their personal best.

According to theory, educators can support students in achieving their learning objectives by differentiating instruction and designing individual learning plans. However, in reality, this may not always be the case. Differentiating instruction in large classes can be challenging and for those teaching de-streamed classes, it may even seem impossible.

The process of de-streaming involves eliminating academic divisions and placing all students, regardless of their skills and interests, in one classroom. This approach can have negative consequences for both teaching and learning and particularly in the field of mathematics education.

Teaching in de-streamed classes presents certain difficulties, such as a heavy emphasis on standardized curriculum. In these classes, teachers are expected to follow a curriculum designed for the average student, which leaves little room for accommodating high-achieving and advanced learners. These students often have more complex and individualized learning needs, including a desire to explore more challenging academic concepts, especially in subjects like mathematics.

In de-streamed classrooms, where students are not separated into ability-based levels, educators often spend a lot of valuable in-class time managing disruptive behavior and motivating uninterested students to stay on task. This can have detrimental effects on the engagement and progress of more enthusiastic learners who work at a faster pace and benefit from enriched coursework.

Additionally, when classrooms are not divided by academic level, resources that were previously reserved for specific groups of students (such as advanced math textbooks and enrichment – before and after school – programs) are often not available or are only used sparingly. This lack of support does not only negatively affect motivated learners but can also lead to a decrease in the overall quality of education.

Finally, de-streaming can be detrimental to student motivation, regardless of their academic performance. Struggling learners may feel overwhelmed by the sudden surge in assignments, while high-achieving learners may become uninterested or bored due to being insufficiently challenged.

What does the current research suggest on de-streaming practices?

Research suggests that to support all students, educators and policymakers must prioritize differentiated instruction, provide enrichment opportunities, and allocate resources for advanced learners.  The question is: How effectively can educators do this in de-streamed classrooms?

We know that de-streaming allows for more inclusivity in the classroom, but we are also learning that it can have detrimental effects on high-achieving learners who benefit from enriched instruction. De-streaming can be detrimental to gifted learners and talented individuals, hindering their intellectual development, and causing them to feel disconnected and unrecognized. Research suggests that the consequences of de-streaming for high performers go beyond academic challenges.  Gifted and advanced learners face emotional struggles as they are denied opportunities to thrive and reach their full potential.

Chinese vs. North American approach to teaching mathematics

The cultural divide between North American and Chinese approaches to teaching mathematics is significant. While North Americans pride themselves on a more hands-on, experiential method of learning, the Chinese have long recognized the importance of structured and rigorous education. For them, mathematics is best learned through endless repetition, memorization, and steady determination. From a young age Chinese students are immersed in advanced mathematical concepts and pushed to excel by their educators who hold high expectations for academic success. In contrast, North American teachers place emphasis on hands-on learning, collaborative problem-solving (group work), and technology integration. Yet this approach often falls short as students struggle to apply their theoretical knowledge in practical situations.

Data shows that Chinese students outperform their North American peers in international mathematics assessments. For example, Chinese students have consistently achieved the highest scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other global assessments.

Numerous individuals have challenged the topic of Chinese education discussing both its advantages and its drawbacks. In her article Why American students need Chinese schools, Lenora Chu shares her personal experience with Chinese schools and highlights the benefits of prioritizing the group over individual needs. According to her experience, in Chinese education system everyone is expected to keep up with the same pace, regardless of any exceptions or diversions. This creates a culture of perseverance that is believed to be more effective in achieving academic success. On the other hand, in the U.S., similar measures are often met with resistance from parents who fear their child’s self-esteem will suffer if they can’t meet certain standards in education. Chu asks: What if instead of focusing on intelligence or natural ability, we placed emphasis on dedicated effort? She writes: “Educational progress in the U.S. is hobbled by parental entitlement and by attitudes that distract from learning. We demand privileges for our children that have little to do with education. As a society, we’re expecting more from our teachers while shouldering less responsibility at home” (Chu, 2017).

Are there any similarities between the two approaches?

In a study conducted in 2020, researchers compared the teaching methods of Chinese educators and their North American counterparts. While there are noticeable differences, the study also revealed common factors that impact student learning. Cultural values, beliefs, and expectations heavily influence the teaching approach of Chinese educators, who were observed to have well-structured lessons and high levels of student engagement. Instead of strict academic rigour, Canadian educators were surprised to find a collaborative learning environment in Chinese classrooms where students actively worked together in groups and participated in lively discussions. Additionally, they observed how Chinese instructors combined mathematical concepts with subjects like history and astronomy to design and deliver engaging lesson plans and activities.

Despite various criticism, Chinese education possesses many remarkable strengths. These include its emphasis on academic success, structured and comprehensive curriculum, early introduction to important subjects, highly qualified teachers, continuous professional growth opportunities, cultural beliefs that prioritize education, and focus on advancements in science and technology. These strengths are most evident when we witness the impressive performance of Chinese students on global assessments.

International testing is not flawless, but it offers valuable insights on the quality of classroom instruction and its ability to prepare students for higher education and the workforce. Through analyzing and comparing various education systems, policymakers can identify strengths and weaknesses and offer targeted recommendations to educators on how to enhance their teaching practices.

Data suggests that in today’s demanding job market, a basic education is simply not enough. Employers seek individuals with highly developed skills in all subjects, particularly in language and mathematics. Hence the greater need for enriched instruction which plays an important role in students’ personal development, societal progress, and economic success. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence supporting such arguments, there are still governments, policymakers, educators, and parents who advocate for one-size-fits-all education completely disregarding the unique needs and potential of high-achieving and gifted learners.

In my previous blog read more on how Canadian students compare to others on international exams.

References:

Cao, L., & Aihui, P. (2021). How Chinese Teach Mathematics : Canadian Teachers’ Perspectives. Front.Educ.   China, 16(1), 31-59.

Chu, L. (2017, September 9). Why American Students Need Chinese Schools. The Wall Street Journal.

Geake, J. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ Negative Affect Toward Academically Gifted Students: An Evolutionary Psychological Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231.

Hu, X., Leung, F. K. S., & Teng, Y. (2018). The Influence of Culture on Students’ Mathematics Achievement Across 51 Countries. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 16(1), 7-24.

Lianghuo, F., Ngai-Ying, W., Jinfa, C., & Shiqi, L. (Eds.) (2004). How Chinese Learn Mathematics: Perspectives from Insiders. River Edge.

Prior, S. (2011). Student Voice: What Do Students Who Are Intellectually Gifted Say They Experience and Need in the Inclusive Classroom? Gifted and Talented International, 26(1), 121-129.

Purcell, J. H., & Eckert, R. D. (Ed.) (2006). Designing Services and Programs for High-Ability Learners: A Guidebook for Gifted Education. Corwin Press.

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291-301.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Hubbard, G. F., & Robbins, J. I. (2020). Differentiation of Instruction for Gifted Learners: Collated Evaluative Studies of Teacher Classroom Practices. Roeper Review, 42(3), 153-164.