Sekolah Sebagai Institusi Pembezaan

WHO ARE AT-RISK AND WHY? NORMAL CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOLS WHO ARE AT-RISK OF SCHOOL FAILURES, DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS THAT RENDER THEM UNABLE TO COPE WELL WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE SCHOOL

AT-RISK CATAGORIES AND SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION Not Meeting Goals In Education Program Not involved due to Social/Emotional Concerns Not Becoming a Productive Worker Low achievement Inability to cope Poor attendance / tardiness Lack of friends Dislike for school Lack of feeling of belonging Poor organization/study skill Financial problem Limited language proficiency Low motivation Discipline problems Pregnancy Dropout Child of divorce/orphans Culturally isolated/rural No extracurricular involvement Substance use or abuse Unhealthy physical appearance Inability to adapt Poverty Negative peer influences No identified career interests No future direction/planning No plans beyond high school Low aptitude/skills for work Source: The Solon Community School District, At-Risk Plan of Services 2003 (modified)

THERE ARE MULTIPLE AT-RISK FACTORS THEY ARE POTENTIAL SCHOOL DROPOUTS THEY ARE GENERALLY PLACED IN THE LOWER STREAMS THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AS HAVING SPECIAL NEEDS MOST OFTEN NOT GIVEN DUE ATTENTION

Source: Planning and Research Division Ministry of Education (2004) DROPOUT Dropouts in Ministry of Education Schools by Level 2000 2001 2002 2003 From Year 3 – Year 4 From Year 6 – Remove Class & Form 1 From Form 3 – Form 4 From Form 4 – Form 5 -7,883 -56,268 -24,671 -14,608 -930 -55,168 -20,758 -14,854 -3,377 -47,966 -21,479 -17,181 89 -45,565 -16,391 -14,570 Source: Planning and Research Division Ministry of Education (2004) Note: About 10% of students continue their schooling outside the MOE systems after Year 6

THE AT-RISK FACTORS REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT: LOW GRADES TRUANCY AND DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS LOW EXPECTATIONS

NOT ACHIEVING MINIMUM COMPETENCIES No. of student not achieving minimum level competency in National Examinations (2003) No of Students % UPSR PMR SPM (Failed) 186,179 156,337 32,599 39.8 % 38.5 % 9.1 % Source: Education Planning and Research Division Ministry of Education Malaysia (extrapolated)

In the year 2000, 34, 628 students were involved in truancy problems, 99% were boys.

MEASURES TO SOLVE ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS DEMERIT POINTS, WARNINGS, CANING, EXPULSIONS, POLICING EXTRA CLASSES, TUITION VOUCHERS, MOTIVATION CAMPS, COUNSELING, ETC.

FOCUS IS MORE ON CHANGING THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS, LESS ON CHANGING THE SCHOOL

PERTINENT QUESTIONS * HOW WELL ARE OUR SCHOOLS SERVING AT- RISK CHILDREN? * WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE WAY THEY LEARN AND THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO TEACH THEM? * HOW SENSITIVE ARE SCHOOLS TOWARDS THEIR SOCIO- PSYCHOLOGICAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT?

WHAT ARE THE SCHOOLS’ EFFORTS TO MAKE SCHOOLING MORE MEANINGFUL TO THESE STUDENTS? ARE SCHOOLS’ PRACTICES CONCERNING THESE STUDENTS PUTTING THEM FURTHER INTO AT-RISK SITUATIONS INSTEAD OF REDUCING IT? WHAT ARE SCHOOLS’ INITIATIVES IN INVOLVING FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES OF AT-RISK CHILDREN IN THEIR EDUCATION?

Pengaliran Definisi Pengaliran (streaming, between-class ability grouping, tracking). Penempatan murid dalam kelas yang berbeza berasaskan pencapaian akademik murid.

Bagaimana pelajar dikelompokkan Kelompok kebolehan sejenis (Homogenous ability grouping) Stream Jurusan/tracking Kelompok kebolehan aneka jenis (hetreogenous A.G) Kelompok kebolehan dalam bilik darjah Set

Andaian Streaming Kebolehan boleh diukur dan tidak berubah-ubah Senang diajar Senang dinilai Berfaedah kepada semua murid Tidak akan berlaku salah penempatan

2. THE STREAMING PROCESS: THE UNINTENDED EFFECTS LEARNING IS A SOCIAL PROCESS, IT TAKES PLACE IN A SOCIAL SETTING IN WHICH STUDENTS LEARN CERTAIN BEHAVIOURAL NORMS AND FORM EXPECTATIONS OF THEIR ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND THAT OF OTHERS

STREAMING INFLUENCE THE WAY TEACHERS TEACH – IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY, QUANTITY AND PACE OF INSTRUCTION IN THE CLASSROOM

ANTI-SCHOOL CULTURE FLOURISH WHEN RECALCITRANT AND ACADEMICALLY WEAK STUDENTS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME STUDENTS LEARN IN A NEGATIVE SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT STUDENTS DEMONSTRATE LOW EDUCATIONAL ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOOL ATTACHMENT THEIR PERFORMANCE DETERIORATE AND THE GAP IN ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN THESE STUDENTS AND THOSE IN THE HIGHER STREAMS GROWS BIGGER AS THEY PROGRESS THROUGH THE GRADES

MAKE STUDENTS WRITE NOTES, WITH LITTLE EXPLANATIONS DO NOT CHALLENGE STUDENTS DO NOT TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO LEARN UNAWARE THAT STUDENTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR TEACHING DUE TO LANGUAGE CONSTRAINT

ON NOT LIKING TO WRITE Student 1: Saya dapat C sebab saya malas nak tulis panjang-panjang bila buat karangan. Tidur lagi baik. Belajar BM bosanlah..lagipun saya Melayu tak payah belajar BM pun boleh lulus. Student 2: Cikgu subjek tingkatan 4 ni semua membosankan. Saya tak minat. Lepas tu jawapan mesti dalam essei pulak. Tu yang malas nak tulis tu. Buang masa je. Student 3: Kenapa tak macam PMR dulu. Semua jawab dalam objektif, hitamkan je malas la nak tulis, banyak kerja lain lagi yang boleh saya buat.

THE STREAMING PROCESS LABELS AT-RISK STUDENTS, POLARIZES THEM AND PUTS THEM FURTHER INTO AT-RISK SITUATIONS

More lower streamed students agreed to these statements compared to the higher streamed students “We know that most teachers feel that we don’t have a bright future” (57.9% L.S, 27.7% H.S) “Most of the students in my class are not interested in learning because the teachers think that we are stupid” (60.8% L.S, 14.4% H.S) “Most teachers in my class have low expectations of our academic achievements” (56.1% L.S, 37.9% H.S)

Being unfairly treated Student 1: Betul cikgu, pengetua tu memang tak adil dan tak berhati perut punya manusia. Kita orang dah penat-penat cat hari tu, dia datang dan tiba-tiba marah. Dia kata saya pemalas, duduk je. Padahal sebelum dia datang saya dah penat kikis dinding dan mengecat. Kebetulan masa pengetua datang saya tengah lepak kejap. Form teacher saya pun terkejut tengok pengetua marah saya. Orang tanyalah dulu, ni tak main terkam je. (memaki hamun pengetua).

Student 2: Boring betullah! Asyik nak cari kesalahan kelas ni je. Kami tahulah kami ni kelas last sekali dan memang dah dicap tak berdisiplin. Tak bagi peluang langsung. Student 3: Poyo-poyo punya HM (sambil mengeluarkan kata-kata yang tidak senonoh) Student 4: Cikgu kat sekolah ni, selalu mengata kami. Mentang-mentanglah kami kat kelas yang last sekali. Tak apa…nanti kita buat kecoh baru tau.

DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS TARDINESS NOT DOING HOMEWORK NOT BRINGING TEXT BOOKS NOT PAYING ATTENTION IN CLASS TRUANCY DISRUPTING TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS BULLYING VANDALISM SMOKING

Number of Students Playing Truants by Stream School 1 School 2 School 3 2H 2L 4H 4L 2H 2L 4H 4L Jan Feb Mac April May 0 19 10 22 0 19 20 30 0 17 20 26 0 24 14 27 0 19 15 24 0 10 2 13 4 13 5 14 3 17 4 19 5 21 11 NA 5 12 9 6 3 19 8 37 5 22 10 18 11 18 16 21 11 22 14 21 13 15 12 17 Source: Sharifah and Noraizah (2001) H: Highest Stream L: Lowest Stream

Percentage of Passes in Core Subjects Based on Streams (Final Results 2003) Stream 1H 1L 2H 2L 3H 3L 4H 4L 5H 5L Malay Language 100% 50% 100% 97% 100% 60% 100% 62% 100% 68% English 90% 0% 90% 30% 98% 33% 100% 5% 96% 2% Mathematic 89% 15% 100% 45% 100% 2.5% 100% 10% History 60% 20% 80% 43% 96% 52% 100% 15% 65% 15% Living Skill 100% 25% 100% 100% 100% 98% - - General Science 50% 3% 83% 33% 97% 45% - 20% - 25% Geography 100% 30% 100% 85% 100% 78% - - Source: A FELDA school (2004)

GAP IN ACHIEVEMENT. BETWEEN THE HIGHER. STREAMED CLASSES AND GAP IN ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN THE HIGHER STREAMED CLASSES AND THE LOWER STREAMED CLASSES GETS LARGER AS THEY PROCEED THROUGH THE GRADES

Source: Sharifah and Noraizah (2001) Higher Stream Lowest Stream Item Agree Disagree There are students in my class who prefer to sleep in class 59 (30.3%) 136 (69.7%) 98 (57.3%) 73 (42.7%) Most students in my class do not know our goals for coming to school 77 (39.5%) 118 (60.5%) 102 (59.6%) 69 (40.4%) Most students in my class obey school rules 102 (52.3%) 93 (47.7%) 65 (38.0%) 106 (62.0%) Source: Sharifah and Noraizah (2001)

Kesan pengaliran kepada pelajar Wujud struktur persahabatan dan budaya informal pelajar yang mengarah kepada anti-budaya sekolah Wujud budaya anti sekolah di kalangan pelajar kelas lemah – Woods, 1990. Wujud jurang perbezaan yang luas dari segi pencapaian akademik antara pelajar aliran lemah dan aliran baik – Sharifah, 1985. Menjejaskan imej kendiri pelajar aliran lemah.

Kesan pengaliran kepada pencapaian akademik dan sosial pelajar Pengaliran adalah stabil. Stratifikasi sosial Mempengaruhi iklim jangkaan sekolah Mempengaruhi Jangkaan guru Social reproduction

Kaedah Alternatif Menurut Slavin (1987), Ciri-ciri kelompok kebolehan yang berfaedah kepada murid:- Murid berada dalam kelas heteregenous hampir sepanjang hari tetapi dikelompokkan mengikut mata pelajaran tertentu yang memerlukan kelas homogenus. Pengelompokkan mengurangkan hetreogenity dalam kemahiran yang diajar. Penempatan kepada kelompok adalah fleksibel dan kerap ditukar. Guru menyediakan bahan pengajaran mengikut kesediaan dan tahap murid.

Kaedah 1. JOPLIN PLAN Bilik darjah heterogenous sepanjang hari. Kelompok hanya untuk math dan bacaan. Kelompok ikut kebolehan bukan ikut umur tetapi ikut prestasi dalam mata pelajaran tertentu. Guru senang mengjar kelompok yang homogenous Kumpulan ini adalah fleksible, pelajar yang meningkat atau merosot mudah menukar kelompok mengikut tahap mereka. Guru mengajar ikut tahap dan kesediaan murid.

Kaedah 2. Cooperative Learning Murid bekerjasama dalam kelompok kecil yang heterogenous untuk mencapai matlamat kelompok Prinsip pembelajaran berdasarkan kerja sama, mementingkan ganjaran kumpulan, tanggungjawab individu dan memberi peluang yg sama kpd semua untuk berjaya. Contoh; Jenis pembelajaran kooperatif –Student Teams Achievement Division/STAD

STAD Murid dlm satu kumpulan terdiri dari 4 org Guru mengajar seluruh kelas Murid bekerjasama menguasai pelajaran Murid diuji secara individu Skor setiap murid dlm kumpulan dibanding dgn skor yg lepas – semua skor peningkatan ahli kumpulan dicampurkan dan dijadikan skor kumpulan Kumpulan yg paling tinggi skor mendapat ganjaran

Kaedah 3. Pengelompokan kebolehan dalam bilik darjah Penempatan murid dalam kelas yang beraneka kebolehan (heterogenous). Murid dikelompokkan secara kelompok kecil berasaskan kebolehan akademik. * di U.S – dibentuk untuk math dan bacaan.

Dapatan kajian mendapati kelompok kebolehan dlm bililik darjah mempunyai ciri-ciri berikut; Kelompok yg banyak dan sukar diurus Pelajar didlm kelompok yg berbeza dari segi ses sama dgn pengaliran Perbezaan kelompok dari segi kebolehan ini ketara kpd guru dan murid, maka sama dgn pengaliran wujudnya proses melabel Kurang didapati pengelompokan dilakukan bagi matapelajaran seperti math dan bacaan Mobiliti kelompok lebih baik drpd pengaliran, iaitu pelajar boleh menukar kelompok masing-masing mengikut prestasi

Kesimpulan streaming; Tidak berfaedah kepada murid lemah Mewujudkan stratifikasi sosial Mengasingkan murid dari awal lagi Mempengaruhi layanan guru, dan cara guru mengajar Melabel murid Kurang mobiliti Tidak adil kepada segolongan murid Lebih sensitif kepada keperluan pengelolaan daripada keperluan murid

What Should we do?

Perlu ubah nilai, kepercayaan ini!!!! Kecerdasan sebagai satu yang tetap (fixed)  kecerdasan adalah ‘multifaceted’ dan sentiasa berkembang. Pembelajaran sebagai satu urutan pengetahuan dan kemahiran  pembelajaran sebagai satu proses yang kompleks hasil daripada tanggapan kita terhadap pengalaman kita.

Bagaimana dengan guru?

Guru Perlu faham akan falsafah yang terdapat dalam kaedah alternatif. Perlu diberi bimbingan. Latihan guru perlu meneroka kaedah alternatif. Perlu tukar nilai, dan sikap dalam menghadapi tanggungjawab dan peranan yang berbeza. ‘semua murid boleh belajar’ Kelainan dalam bilik darjah akan memperkayakan bilik darjah.

Cadangan untuk layanan guru Tempat duduk pelajar lemah dan pandai tidak dibezakan. Perhatian yang sama – senyum, pandang. Panggilan yang sama kerap antara pelajar pandai dan lemah. Tidak terlalu mengkritik pelajar lemah. Pujian untuk respons. Tuntutan yang tinggi dari kedua jenis pelajar tentang mutu kerja.

Cadangan komposisi murid: Lebih ramai murid yang sederhana dan pandai dalam sesebuah kelas. Murid lemah kurang 1/3 bilangannya. Bilik darjah yang tidak terlalu heterogenus.

Kesimpulan Untuk memikirkan/mengamalkan alternatif kepada pengaliran perlu Mengambil kira NILAI-NILAI dan NORMA-NORMA yang berakar umbi dalam pengaliran. *konsepsi terhadap kecerdasan, kebolehan, pembelajaran, potensi murid, kelainan murid dsb.