Honestly, this school year has worn me out. I don't have it in me to get into a heavy debate about destreaming vs streaming.

All I'm going to say is that like any idea, it works if you invest in it properly. Destreaming can work, but you must invest in it by:

- Reducing class sizes
- Providing additional resources (e.g. EAs, tutors, etc) so students with gaps can be properly supported
- Support teachers by allowing professional development time to collaborate & plan
- Properly prepare students for destreaming in elementary*

*By that I mean providing academic supports in elementary for students with learning gaps.

We also need better investment into mental health supports for our students. If your child is struggling with mental health, then why are we surprised when your child struggles at school?

I've taught ENG1D multiple times. You already receive students with a wide range of knowledge & abilities. I spent a lot of time reviewing the basics. Destreaming grade 9 courses without any further investments to support our students will not yield the results we think it will.

Am I against destreaming? No. I am against destreaming and stopping the changes right there.

If we want destreaming to really work, then we need additional funding.

Without those investments, destreaming is simply a cost saving measure made on the backs of our students.

The difference in class sizes between ENG1D, ENG1P, and ENG1L alone will tell you there's a lot of savings to be had if we just lump every student into ENG1D.

I'm pretty sure this applies to other grade 9 subjects as well.

This went on way longer than I intended. Bottomline: invest in education properly & it'll work properly. Don't & we'll repeat what happened with destreaming decades ago.

The definition of insanity is to doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.