The star-section (fast-track
section) system or is currently a trending class stratification and labeling system
that sweeps throughout secondary education schools. While I understand much of
its rationale which I will elaborate, I humbly disagree with the educational
philosophy behind this system because of important points which I will discuss
in this editorial. This topic has been in my mind for four years. It is also
possible that my reading of the manga Ansatsu Kyoushitsu, under the tutelage of
my beloved Koro-sensei, allowed these words to flow.
The star-section system is
utilitarianistic in nature. Students who have very high GWA are selected to
become classmates in the section known as the star-section, under an
accelerated, more challenging pace of lessons. This is, to a degree, worthwhile
especially for these students whose grades do really match their intelligence,
because they can advance their knowledge and skills even further by facing
greater academic challenges and participating in academic contests. This is
also beneficial for the school, because the school can easily select their
students to represent the school. On the surface, the students in this section
are more or less assured of a wonderful future. The school sends best of their
teachers to this section in order to teach the “best of the best”. Students are
promoted to become more and more conscientious if they want to stay in that
section; consequently, they become more grade-conscious. To the so-called
primary stakeholders of this system – the school, the teachers and the
star-section students and their parents (who may sometimes exert greater
influence under the meritocratic-like system of the school), this is a good
thing to do on the surface. However, this polarization creates flaws, both to
those who merit from this system and the “ordinary” students.
Underneath this lies a fatal
assumption. Can we accept that the school intends to maximize the abilities of
the “bright” students who “show promise for a great future”, while
inadvertently believing that the other students “have limited futures” and
therefore must be subject to “normal education”? This is intentional labeling,
and that’s a separate point that I will discuss later. Ultimately, star-section
system unconsciously features a polarized self-fulfilling prophecy, while those
“other” students are doomed to a future with limits. High-GWA students are met
with plenty of opportunities that are not open to others. Moreover, it is not
given that the students of the “other” sections are unwilling to undertake
great challenges. Therefore, it's not a question of willingness or capability.
At this point, it is at its root, a means to discriminate against students who
do not perform to standards that were initially tailored to a singular type of
student or the so-called “ideal student”.
In the first place, the
lone-standing GWA is not a reliable indication of an intelligent mind, much
less a student who deserves better education or teaching methods simply because
he or she “shows promise for a good future”. On the contrary, to a very limited
extent, grades do define students commensurate to their effort in studying.
There are plenty of other parameters that one should pay attention. Many of the
world’s greatest inventors, innovators and revolutionaries are those who never
got a high GWA. However, because education treatment among students is
polarized by this GWA-determined star-sectioning system, we can also say that
those who simply didn’t reach the cutoff are deprived or deviated from a
supposedly better standards of education. It is highly probably that these
students who are not in the star-section are deprived of teaching methods that
would allow them to learn and benefit as much as those in the star-section.
Along the line of consequential
thinking, we know that secondary schools offer a limited “diversity” of
students. The original paradigm of students randomly distributed among all
sections maximizes the limited diversity. However, stratifying, polarizing and
labeling students into one exclusive section worsens this limitation. High-GWA
students are limited to interacting with fellow grade-conscious or
“intelligent” students, and there is a lack of development of communication
skills to those who are not as “intelligent” as them. People grow with the
variety of personalities from their peers. Being exposed to the different
types, personality or attitudes of people around them helps them grow. How can
the failing student learn to strive without the high achiever to set the
standard? It is highly improbable for the student who fails to see the “high”
lives of the overachievers and therefore miraculously generates a drive for
good grades. How can you make the arrogant genius communicate with the students
who need extra effort to pass their subjects? How can a teacher discipline or teach
what is right to a group of arrogant geniuses who are obviously wrong about
something when their collective pride is so high up in the heavens?
Just as it was mentioned above, the
star-section system categorizes students according to their GWA. Categorizing
leads to labeling. Labeling tolerates deviance and ultimately bullying. Not
only is communication amongst students limited, the culture of bullying is
worsened – not just to fellow students but even to teachers! Teacher-bullying
can be a consequence of the pride of the high-GWA students. The high-GWA
students can be led into having an inflated sense of ego, thinking that they
are better than the others. The high-GWA students can collectively bully the
low-GWA students (as seen in many instances not only in the manga Ansatsu
Kyoushitsu), and the low-GWA students can smart-shame or define an imaginary,
“anti-nerd” exclusivity against the high-GWA students.
Ultimately, education is still best
done under the original system, and the school should promulgate the right
mindset to education especially to its students – diversity, intellectual
humility and communication, simply because life is more than just GWA. In life,
we get to meet many people who can never be in the same level as us. In life,
teachers are more than just secretaries or “grade accountants”; they teach,
introduce ideas and shape the future through their students! Consequently, the
education system should be geared towards those rationales (including the need
of higher salary for teachers, and the need of free education)!
--
The following part is not entirely
relevant to the main article, but can probably explain why I wrote this article.
Koro-sensei made me think about
educational philosophies.
I may not be able to address the
errors in educational philosophies of categorizing students in tertiary
education institutions, but they need to be checked. There are questions that
are yet to be answered and have their answers justified, such as “Why is there
a tinge of prejudice when we hear that somebody studied or is currently
studying in prestigious schools such as Ivy League schools, MIT, Harvard, UP,
Ateneo, etc.?”
Personally, I’ve been deprived of
“advanced math education” in high school because I simply “wasn’t qualified”.
The ones who got in didn’t even take entrance exams, but it’s ultimately okay
since they joined several math contests unlike me. I have nothing against them.
Meanwhile, I did take an entrance exam, and I got a score less than 50%. In
other words, I failed. However, I was so sure that my answers were correct, and
so I even discussed and justified my solutions with my math teacher who agreed
with my solutions. In the end, I still didn’t get in, and so therefore I had to
forge my own path by joining Mathematics Trainer’s Guild (MTG) and winning
contests by myself. Honestly speaking, it isn’t right to say that I was
representing my school when I joined those contests. I only represent Kumon,
MTG, my parents, myself and my beloved teachers who taught me math.
