John N. Abletis Prof. Filomin C. Gutierrez, Ph. D.M.A. Sociology Student Seminar in Social Stratification (Socio 228)2009-79293 University of the Philippines, Diliman-

CSSP-Dept. of SociologyApril 7, 2010

SOCIOLOGIZING ABILITY GROUPING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:Aptitude, Stratification, Meanings, and Legitimation

When I was in elementary at Payatas A, I was consistently being sectioned at Mahusay (section1). I was not yet aware of how teachers grade their students, how students view their grades, how students view the respective sections they belong, the meanings implied by the labels used by both teachers and students, how our section was privileged, how demeaning it was to be put in the lowest section, and on how students were ranked and were placed in different sections based on their grades. In short, I was not yet aware of how my school worked as a social structure in the sociological sense (i.e. both enabling and constraining).

I entered Batasan Hills National High School in 2001, the school year following President ERAP’s dethroning from the palace. My average grade was fair, I think, when I left Payatas (about 86% if my memory serves me right, also, I wasn’t able to graduate with honors because I wasn’t interested yet in graduating with such), but to my surprise I was putted in to section 23 (Magnolia). That section was not the last section (Batasan Hills at that time has more or less 40 freshmen sections) however, its location (3rd floor, Building B) has generated meanings for me. The size and the condition of the classroom (we have a half-size room, rough flooring, no functioning electric fans, incomplete jalousie windows, with about 20-30 chairs for more or less 50 students) have also contributed to the meaning-construction-process that I was undergoing at that time (the highest section, Star 1, has complete chairs, with the biggest room located at the ground floor of Building A). It didn’t come into my mind that Batasan might have sectioned the students heterogeneously except section 1 (where the elementary honor students were placed) until the time when I was writing my thesis in college (I remembered that we at section Magnolia don’t have similar elementary averages), but that doesn’t erase the fact that at that time, I viewed the sectioning scheme at Batasan as if it was homogeneous. I believed I was not alone in thinking those matters the way I have thought them. I can still remember how we (with other friends from nearby sections) have been conspiring, although occasionally—and of course not seriously, for (and ambition to be at) the star section. A news paper article which I have found during my search for review of related literature would probably suggests how lower section students treat their higher section counterparts.

… It was a matter of honor for those in the premier section to maintain their standing there or for those in the lower-sections to be promoted to join them, replacing those who had fallen behind. Reassignment to a lower-section was a disgrace. Naturally, those in the brightest class were despised by those in the lower-sections, but this was probably out of envy only… (Cruz, 1999, p. 8; Emphasis mine)

The word “disgrace” will be expounded later in the paper. But the phrase “out of envy only” makes me think to consider that maybe, at that time, I was just envied and my allegations have no bases. But a large part of mine is contending something, this may be due to my training in Sociology. To treat meanings and truisms at the surface value will certainly outrage a dedicated sociologist, as it would devalue a widely accepted proposition by Peter Berger that the social world has multiple layers of reality, and that the primary task of sociologists is to look “for other levels of reality other than those given in the official interpretation” –debunking (Bryjak & Soroka, 2001, p. 9) and to “look…to real effects” (Ritzer, 2003, p. 96). A possible response by a sociologist to the article above could be this:

…larger forces, part of what sociologists call social structure, set limits and impose constraints on people, regardless of their individual abilities and attitudes…This is not to deny the significance of individual differences in talent, ambition, and effort in creating social inequality. Those are undeniably factors of great importance. But they come into play only within the context of a much wider societal—and global—structure that is far outside the realm of the individual...If societies were divided only along horizontal lines, there would be little social conflict, for although people might be assigned to different groupings and perhaps even be segregated, there would not necessarily be invidious differences among them. That is, there would be no basis for envy or feelings of injustice so long as no differential rewards were accorded the different groupings... (Marger, 1999, pp. 10-12; Emphasis mine)

Back to my life story. I finished my first year as the class president and the top 6 of the class. The following school year, I found my self sectioned in Avogadro (section 3) where I was elected to be the vice president of the class. Fortunately, I finished sophomore top 2 of our class. The following year was dramatic, especially when I was declared as top 1 of Section 2 (Agate: no class officership: sectioning scheme homogeneous). That (together with my average i.e. 89 since not all top 1 go to section 1) qualified me to join the students at section 1. I graduated high school without honor, just a Vice-president-external position from the Supreme Student Council SY: 04-05 consoled me during my agony. That made me swear not to hold any political officership in college. That promise paid off, when I graduated with honors from PUP. These experiences caused me to be interested in the Sociology of Education, and to question ability grouping, intelligence, knowledge, legitimation, and power structures within the school setting.

As would be obviously implied, I am aware of the biases that I may introduce in the analysis of statements of the respondents and the presentation of data [remember that I both became a lower section and a higher section student]. However, as training, I am compelled to control them and be objective. As what C. Wright Mills (2000, p. 6) said, “I have tried to be objective: I do not claim to be detached.”

This does not mean…that as sociologists, we need to divest ourselves of our values; indeed we could not do this even if we wanted to. The ability to conceptualize values… is one of the principal features that distinguishes humans as a species. All that is necessary is that we be prepared to accept what may be surprising and perhaps even displeasing to us if our findings do not support what we strongly believe or hold dear. (Marger, 1999, p.6)

Hence, I am restricted to describing the respondents’ statements and make them sociological using a variety of lenses from different traditions. Certainly, there are epistemological and ontological assumptions in each tradition that should be considered and, obviously, are contrary to other theoretical traditions, but that is not my concern here. I see them as complimentary. Hence, I will use them as long as I could imagine their application to the phenomenon on hand. Any shortcoming is of course, mine.

Most educated Filipinos experienced being grouped into sections during their schooling years. Student sectioning is a common practice of schools, whether public or private, with considerably large student population. It is mostly part of every school’s educational-organizational management strategy to effectively manage the schools limited personnel and material resources in relation to rendering student services (Ballantine, 1997, p. 71). Since education is a major institution of all societies, whether capitalist or communist, inquiries pertaining to it would be very significant as it would be equal to saying that majority of the population is affected by relations and processes within it. Since tracking (between class ability grouping, homogeneous student sectioning [Slavin, 2003, p. 296]) is the traditional way of sorting students “around the world because most teachers feel it is easier to teach a group of like-ability students” (Ballantine, 1997, p. 71), rested on the assumptions of ability and intelligence, inquiries pertaining to these variables are of great significance, especially if done sociologically (because most of the field has been dominated by education and psychology majors). Later in the paper, I will try to show some possible large-scale implications of tracking and models of hybrid type (mixture of homogeneous and heterogeneous student sectioning).

THE SETTING

The setting of the study was Quezon City High School (QCHS). It is one of the oldest secondary schools in Quezon City, established in 1947 by President Manuel L. Quezon to serve the needs of the youth in a budding young city (Quezon City was established in 1939, stable city administration was halted in 1942 due to the Japanese Occupation). Erected near the corner of Sct. Ybardolaza and Kamuning Road, Brgy. Sacred Heart, it serves more or less 3,500 students coming from different barangays in Quezon City.

Like other public schools in Quezon City, QHASÔ (colloquial term used by students, teachers, and residents in referring to QCHS) has 5 days of classes. The school has two shifts of classes, the morning and the afternoon. Senior and Junior students take their classes in the morning, while classes of sophomores and freshmen are held in the afternoon.

The school has a spacious ground. It houses one administrative building (located in front of the school entrance), one faculty building (at the left of the administrative building), an information and technology building (which houses the sciences laboratory, 2 computer laboratories, the school auditorium, and the school library), an open ground with a stadium, a covered court, two canteen locations, a separate bungalow for the school clinic and the guidance office, a BSP (Boy Scouts of the Philippines) building for the Quezon City division, 5 buildings (2-4 storey high) containing the classrooms, a mini park with the Pergola at the center, and other minor buildings. All these are painted in yellow to emphasize that you are in Quezon City. I think it is one of the most spacious high school campuses that I have visited so far in Quezon City (as compared to Batasan Hills National High School, Payatas High School, Bagong Silangan High School, and Fairview High School; other spacious campuses include Quezon City Science High School, San Francisco High School, Commonwealth High School, and Lagro High

School). Scarcity of school materials is not a major problem at QCHS as compared to the other schools that I have visited.

No notable landmarks are near QCHS except a Petron gas station, a Meralco substation, and the Kamuning Elementary School (at the back of QCHS). The school is located in a middle class residency area (judging through the facade of houses surrounding the school).

When I was looking for a respondent school, I find Quezon City High School peculiar, especially when I discovered that it was still practicing Homogeneous Student Sectioning during my data-gathering period. The discovery was peculiar because most of the schools that I have visited were only having at most five homogeneous top sections while the rest of the student populace in every year were sectioned heterogeneously.

The next step I undertook was to seek permission from the superintendent of Quezon City Division Office. May letter request (see Appendix) was approved on February 8, 2010. Accordingly, she referred me to Dr. Romulo B. Rocena, newly appointed principal of QCHS. Dr. Rocena then handed me over to Mrs. Jimenez, the fourth year level chair, who has accommodatingly welcomed me and enthusiastically introduced me to all the teachers that we have passed by as she toured me to Quezon City High School. That was also the time when I started data gathering, although informally (i.e. through unstructured interviews with her and the principal).

THE METHOD The primary method used for this project was the focus group discussion (FGD. Other

methods used include unstructured interviews and overt observations). I chose it as my method to substantiate my last (quantitative) research project at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (formerly Payatas High School) and validate the results unto another setting. To substantiate, I mean is to give it a more qualitative slant since I would be using some insights from the Interpretivism perspective (i.e. Symbolic Interactionism and Phenomenology). Since my first research project in the field, I have been concerned in looking for patterns on the respondents’ perspectives to avoid too much pluralism, and to show that patterns and regularities of experiences and statements indicate the existence of social structures (as a homogenizing factor). This, I mean, is to justify my usage of some (American) Structuralist perspectives (i.e. Structural-functionalism and Conflict theory).

THE PARTICIPANTS After knowing some background information about the school, I asked the help of Mrs.

Jimenez to tell at most five class officers and/or honor students of the top three senior sections and bottom three senior sections to be my possible respondents for focus group discussions on February 25 and 26 at the Pergola, 1:00 – 3:0 pm. I told her that I will provide the participants’ lunch and I will provide the letter for their parents (see Appendix).

On February 25, the day scheduled for the higher section FGD, five students each from sections Einstein (Section 1), Archimedes (3), and Aristotle (4) attended the focus group discussion. Delegates from section 2 were not able to attend because they were participants in the school’s basketball league. Not all of the participants who attended the FGD were class officers and/or honor students as some were ordinary students. There were five males and ten females. We first had our lunch at the school canteen before proceeding to the discussion. After lunch, we proceeded to the Pergola. I introduced my self and my sister (as my co interviewer). I assured them that their names would not appear in my paper and that a copy would be given to the

principal after their graduation. I explained to them that I chose senior students, and preferred class officers and honor students, because they would likely to have the most number of experiences on school processes of stratification and labeling. Further, I also shared with them my reflection that it would be least unethical to choose senior students because any possible negative effect to future years of study as incurred by the FGD would be least since they are graduating very soon from high school. A sense of utility of the research was made known to them when I assured them that their school could use my project to make reforms for the succeeding generations of students at QCHS. Although utility was implicit in the project, my research was independent since no funding came from the school and all of the guide questions used were framed by me, independently (of course with the influence of my personal experiences, influence from past interviews of different students and teachers from other schools, and influence from the articles and books that I have read on the Sociology of Education and Social Stratification). We started our discussion at about 2 pm and ended past 3 pm. A transcription of the conversation is shown at the Appendix.

The following day, I repeated my procedures and explanations for the participants from the lower sections. Delegates from Roentgen (section 19) were not able to attend. Five students each from sections Pythagoras (18) and Rutherford (20: last section) attended the FGD. Among them were 4 boys and 6 girls. We started our conversation at 2 pm and ended at 3 pm. A transcription of the conversation is shown at the Appendix after the transcription of the FGD for the higher sections.

TRACKING

Student sectioning is basically an adaptive mechanism performed by schools to effectively manage the great number of students over the limited number of teaching and supervising staffs. Elementary and high school student-enrolees are grouped into sections with assigned rooms and advisers. The manner of sectioning, or how students are grouped into sections (e.g. section 1, 2, 3…etc), varies on methodologies, standards and principles adopted by different schools. According to Ballantine (1997, p.71) these variations are dependent on the different organizational structures, structural constraints, and the school’s atmosphere or culture. Basically, there are two generally known methodologies in sectioning students: (1) homogenous sectioning (producing homogenous sections) and (2) heterogeneous sectioning (producing heterogeneous sections). It is this act of selecting and placing students into sections that call the attention of educational sociologists, who are sensitive to social inequality, to give special attention on the matter by conducting social researches (Ibid).

Heterogeneous sectioning involves the creation of sections with students having, aside from diverse backgrounds, various abilities and capabilities in learning. It is also composed of students with different inclinations and interests. Schools that strictly adhere to such principle produce no stratification of students based on sections since all sections are perceived to have students of diversified abilities, capabilities, and interests. Thus, Heterogeneous student sectioning produces sections of equal ranking.

Homogenous sectioning basically implies the creation of sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and capabilities in learning.

Selection and Allocation – schools are like gardeners; they sift, weed, sort, and cultivate their products...Standards of achievement are used to channel students

into different programs on the basis of their measured abilities... (Colon, 2002, p.131: emphasis mine)

Ballantine (1997, p.71) states that most school administrators and teachers around the world prefer ability grouping since they feel that teaching ability grouped students would be easy. Goodlad (1984, p.151) further explained that “tracking... [is] a device for endeavouring to reduce the range of differences in a class and therefore the difficulty and complexity of the teaching task.” Slavin (2003, p.298) also expressed the same idea. How students are chosen to be part of each homogenous section is basically done with reference to students’ previous grades and results of objective tests. Objective tests usually take the forms of achievement tests, ability tests, aptitude tests, and IQ tests. These tests are used as a meter stick to know what and how much students have learned during their past schooling experiences. Ballantine (1997, p.49) noted that “schools use exams at various checkpoints to track...students and to ensure that students are achieving at grade level, since schools are held accountable by the community for their activities...” hence, tests have not loose their prominence and necessity in formal education settings through time.

Most schools would likely focus on curricular (academic) rather than extracurricular activities (e.g. sports), hence, when sectioning students based on previous grades and/or results of exams, schools could create stratified sections: with the highest section containing students who obtained high grades and/or tests scores, and with the lowest section containing students who obtained the lowest grades and/or tests scores.

The very rational adherence of schools to previous grades and test scores in sectioning and in determining the fate of students has drawn both support and criticisms. Many, especially sociologists, question the validity of IQ tests and ability tests, including its biases and composition, doubting if intelligences are really being measured by IQ tests.1

1 Although psychologically speaking, intelligence is the sum total of all cognitive processes and skills of an individual (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.262), to the common people, intelligence and being intelligent is mostly identified with having a form of expertise in Science, Mathematics, English, and those subjects which require serious thinking tasks: in short, common people perceive intelligence as those connected to mental activities. More bodily activities such as talents for singing, dancing, acting and sports are valued but not considered as forms of intelligence, although in Psychology they are. Thus, one could have heard something like “mga bobo naman yang mga athletes na yan” and “mga BPE lang.” Human intelligence as a whole is abstract. Dr. Howard Gardner even believed that all humans possess at least seven areas of intelligence (Ibid, p.265). However, society only recognizes and gives value to the logical/mathematical intelligence; nature smart; and the verbal/linguistic intelligence. This is evident since most of the jobs available in the job market and most of what college students in the country are taking are related to these specific intelligences (e.g. Call center agents and English teachers abroad for the verbal/linguistic intelligence). One strong proof of this prioritization of certain types of intelligence is the different units assigned by the curriculum to each subject. In the 2002 BEC (Basic Education Curriculum), the Science subjects are given 2 units, English and Math have 1.5 units, Filipino with 1.2 and Makabayan (AP, TLE, MAPEH, and Values Ed) with 3.7 units. Concerning human intelligences’ abstractness, the following statements could be thought: (1) one major and institutional tool in measuring intelligence is the Intelligence test (IQ test). However, the fact that no intelligence test measures the native capacity of individuals independently from their background of experiences; that IQ test score could be affected by not considering the native language of the examinee (e.g. A Filipino student taking up an IQ test written-in-English); and that no intelligence test sample all intellectual functions to an equal degree (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p. 52) would suggest that Intelligence tests are not firm bases in determining the future or absolute ability of individuals and that they only suggest probabilities (not certainties). Further, IQ is not constant (ibid). Since IQ is not absolute, as well as tests related to it, it logically follows that results driven from those tests are only rough reflections of the whole (range of intelligence of a person). Scores derived from aptitude tests and achievement tests also imply the same.

Ballantine (1997) also stressed the problem identified in ranking people based on their perceived ability through tests scores:

All of the studies point to the problem of ranking or classifying people on the basis of scores that are unreliable or changeable and that are influenced by environmental circumstances. They also suggest that intelligence – as typically measured –is not a fixed, inherited attribute but a variable depending on stimulation and on cultural and environmental factors. (Ballantine, 1997, p.51: emphasis mine)

Lumpkins, Parker, and Hall (1991, p.135) believe that people “have no real reason to believe that the basic potential of a normal child who is a low achiever is less than that of a child who is relatively high achiever.”

Grouping “mentally gifted” students together into higher-sections would psychological benefit them since the school (through the teachers) would likely to give them advance methods of teaching and special programs (Raywid, 1998, p.69; Ballantine, 1997, pp.73-74), all efforts adhering to the principles of psychology regarding special training for the gifted. Since these students belong to the cream of the crop, there is a tendency that they would win the favor of teachers and administrators, as a consequence, they should also have to maintain their position by performing what society (teachers and school administrators) expects them to do (roles).

Is Homogenous sectioning a threat to Democracy? Ballantine (1997) presented the dilemma of separating the “gifted” into special classes:

Societies need to develop and utilize the talents of their most gifted members, but this presents dilemmas and controversies in democracies: To single out some students for special treatment or training is to give advantage to some and create an elite intelligentsia, yet if ability is considered regardless of other factors, such as family position, we are developing and utilizing needed resources… (Ballantine, 1997, p.120: emphasis mine)

Homogenous student-sectioning could produce conditions that could be considered as discriminatory on the part of students belonging to lower-sections.

The curriculum provided for boys and girls labeled as low achievers, as well as the instructional methods used by teachers, often do not measure up to those provided for students identified as high achievers. The discrepancy was never

In an article, David Gillborn and Deborah Youdell (2001, pp. 64-99) contend that “the greatest danger in current uses of the word ‘ability’ is that it acts as an unrecognized version of ‘intelligence’ and ‘IQ.”American Psychological Association has once stated that a “naïve statement of the difference is that intelligence test measures capacity to learn and the achievement test measures what has been learned. But items in all psychological and educational tests measure acquired behavior” (ibid: italics are original, my emphasis is on bolded words). To say “acquired behavior” is equivalent to saying “learned behavior,” and as voluminous educational, psychological, and to some degree sociological books, researches, and journals have revealed, there are also multitude of factors affecting learning. “To say that a pupil is ‘more’ or ‘less’ able should only be taken as a verdict on their past performance; that such a statement often labels individuals as somehow inherently destined for relatively high or low achievement reveals the extent to which the pseudo-scientific IQism of Jensen, Herrnstein and company has penetrated ‘common sense” (ibid, p. 82; emphasis mine).

the intent of teachers who used ability grouping, but it was found to be a result of the technique (Lumpkins et. al., 1991, p.135: emphasis mine)

Problems of identification and how students should be “grouped,” criticisms about the unreliability of tests and scores, including the word intelligence and how it should be measured (Ballantine, 1997, p.50), discriminatory practices and issues; and conflicting values between democracy and the society’s need to tap and develop skills of the gifted students are some of the issues confronting educational sociologists.

THE ELITES

As stated earlier, consideration of previous grades would produce higher section students and lower section students. Students who fill the higher sections have the highest averages among the student populace. As one participant said: “Alam naman po natin na talagang mataas po talaga yung [average] sa mga [nasa] section 1.” The phrase “alam naman po natin” means that the respondents have taken it as a fact and a part of their lifeworlds. Grades as a measure of ability, I think, is part of modernity. The belief that the abstract notion of ability is calculable reminds me of the McDonaldization of Society by George Ritzer. Although I am aware that his theory is applicable to fast-food restaurants and organizational settings, I want to use his terms to situate ability grouping in the modern world. The term efficiency in his theoretical arsenal could be applied to grades by contending that grades enable teachers and school administrators to have a standard bases in classifying students. The need to classify students was already mentioned; this need is in conjunction with the reification of grades, ability, and IQ as if they are real and accurate entities in a meritocratic, rational society. These entities have structural consequences. Since social structures involve individuals, and obviously, mentioned-entities are mostly applied to individuals, it follows that predictability-in-structural-consequences follows whenever standards have been established (ex. The grade A, 1.0, or 95 would be treated similar, with little variability, across educational institutions with similar standards). Rationalizing ability through grades, and grades as a product of modernity, may somehow involve areas of contention as grades have been traditionally used to represent ability: long before the industrial revolution took place (remember the civil examination used by the ancient Chinese to rationalize the appointment of empirial positions). Personally, I haven’t yet read a book as to when did people start using grades to represent ability, but I believed that the concern for grades, ability, and IQ is a recent phenomenon in the entire human history since Psychology emerged only in the scene in the late 1800s and its theory of intelligence in the 20th century. The use of intelligence tests in businesses and in the academe became widespread throughout the 20th century, hence we could infer that the rationalization of ability through grades and scores became intensified after the industrial revolution and hence, largely a product of modernity.

Grades imply individualism. It implies personal effort if someone wants to have high grades. This is part of the ideology behind the common notion of success: that people should be solely accountable in the consequences of their undertakings. This ideology involves the non-recognition of structural factors influencing individual performance; structural factors that are mostly outside the realm of individual control. Success as an individual undertaking is evident in the statements of the respondents.

… sayang pwede… sanang maging… mas mataas pa yung maabot mo kaya lang hindi mo pinag-ige yung gawain mo kaya hindi mo naabot yung dapat mong [maabot]…

 Oo, kung lagpak ka eh di panindigan mo… ginawa mo yun eh....tinatanim lang naman po namin sa isip namin, yung... mga nasabi ng mga teachers namin nang 3rd year [na] hindi po sila yung gumagawa ng grade namin, kami po yung gumagawa ng grade namin. Yung grade na ginagawa namin, sila lang po yung nagtatago’t nagcocompute kaya wala po kaming karapatang magreklamo dun sa grade na nakukuha namin kung alam naman namin na yun talaga yung deserving naming makuha.

The last statement reminds me of how teachers justify the grades that they are giving to their students. I am a teacher now, and I think that that statement also suits the way I grade my students. Risking my reputation as a credible grader, I want to remind the readers that there are many researches indicating how grades could be affected by personal values and biases of the teachers, not to mention the “sex of the students”, “halo effect”, “oral language patterns”, “appearance” of the students etc. (Ballantine, 1997, p. 77). The statement above could also demean the possible effects of family environment and school environment to the learning process of students. Below are the statements by some higher section participants challenging the veracity of grades and hence, their sections as indicators of their ability.

Ako sa tingin ko hindi ko po deserve... Ok lang naman sa akin na section 4 ako pero kung papipiliin ako mas tingin ko po kasi mas deserving ako sa [mas] higher [section] kasi po noong 3rd year po ako transferee po kasi ako so napunta po ako sa lower section, ang... nakikita ko pong dahilan iba po kasi yung grading na binibigay nila sa higher at sa lower kaya po hanggang [section] 4 lang po [yung naabot ng grade ko];

Noong 3rd year po ako sa Math, nung nalaman ko po yung quiz ko, kalevel po ng sa section 1. [Kaso] yung grade ko mababa po sa binibigay nya. Ang reason daw po kasi, iba daw po kasi yung kumpitisyon sa mababang section sa kumpitisyon po sa mataas.

… mas mataas po yung total na nakuha ko sa quizzes [kaysa sa tatlong nauna sa akin] pero pagdating po sa percentage… biglang nagiba, parang hindi rin tama yung pagcompute ng grade;

Of course, there are deviant cases and teachers are still capable of giving the right grades to the right students. But again, we should not take it as if it is the entirety of the phenomenon.

Bakit naman po noong 1st year ako, last section 24 nakakuha po ako ng grade na 96. Kaya kung ano talaga yung kailangang grade na [ibigay sa iyo], yung naabot mo, yun talaga yung ibibigay sa iyo.

Sa tingin ko, deserving naman ako kasi based sa grade ko deserving naman sya…

… kasi yun naman yung binigay sa'king grade ng mga teacher…

The last statement reminded me of my teacher in Social Psychology in PUP. She said that pupils view their teachers as the legitimate source of knowledge. I view teachers as leaders, with authority from (to quote Max Weber) charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal sources. It involves legitimacy, cumulatively establishing itself within the minds of students as early as 3 years old (nursery). Since students spend more time in school than with their parents, the school experience further legitimizes the position held by teachers as valid, legitimate judges of persons.

Part of Individualism and the faith of students with their teachers, optimism is evident in the statements of higher section students, especially those from section 1.

Napunta ka rito hindi dahil naappoint ka kundi kailangan dito ka talaga para ipakita mo yung kaya mo o yung best mo kasi nandito ka dahil meroon kang dapat gampanan na tungkulin na dapat na ikaw mismo yung gumawa dahil…napabilang ka dito. Hindi sa ginusto na mapabilang ka dito kundi [dito] ka talaga;

 Previously, I noted that homogeneous student sectioning is a traditional practice. Since it

became traditional (involving a long time of being practiced in schools), it implies that principals, teachers, parents, administrators, policy makers, scientists and professionals became exposed to meanings, attributes, labels, and expectations produced by the practice, and are likely to pass it to their children, students and subordinates. Homogenization among groups (“like-minded” students in every section) creates attributes, expectations, and labels that were passed on from generation to generation of students. These attributes, labels, and expectations survive the test of time, as long as there are material bases indicating their operation (i.e. the practice of homogeneous student sectioning). When I asked the higher section participants to give some adjectives and expectations used/shown by teachers and students in describing/expecting the kind of students in the higher sections, they replied: “cream of the crop”, “role model”, “laging magsimula ng maganda kasi kami raw yung gagayahin”, “extraordinary”, “magaling kami”, “hindi kami kalevel ng mga lower sections”, “dapat mas mataas kami”, and “dapat kami yung mangunguna.” Obviously, the adjectives and expectations are positive, high expecting ones. These adjectives become labels once they are tagged and verbalized to students.

[The act of labeling] is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits complained of… (-Frank Tannembaum, quoted in Hawkins & Tiedeman, 1975, p. 44).

 Expectations by administrators and teachers translate to different treatment to students,

depending on the rank of the section they belong. Positive expectations turn into favorable treatment. Treatments vary in degree of being favorable to higher section students: Teachers spend less time in teaching lessons to higher section students. This results into good teacher-student relationship as teachers would less likely be irritated due to fast learning of lessons and least giving of effort.

…may mga teacher kami na sinasabi ‘oh sige sa inyo sandali nalang namin ituturo iyan kasi magaaksaya pa kami ng oras... mas maggugugol kami ng mahabang oras na ituro yan doon sa mga lower section.

 

The setback is that not all students in the higher sections understand the topic thoroughly as what the teacher is expecting whenever he/she finishes a topic.

Higher section students are given more advanced, comprehensive, lessons than lower section students.

... yung sabi kasi ng teacher [sa amin] kaya daw po naiba yung libro, dati parehas lang sila na yung color blue yung ginagamit namin [sa] section 3 kaya lang napansin siguro ng section 1 na yung color blue puro kwento po tapos yung ginagamit nila puro grammar. Dun sa grammar nagpofocus yung [kanilang libro] kaya yun yung pinagamit sa kanila. Eh yung teacher namin ewan ko dun kung bakit yung puro kwento yung ginagamit sa amin.

 Higher section students are prioritized in the distribution of material resources.

Participants from section 1 reported that they have complete textbooks (although they do not use it since they rely mostly on workbooks bought at the school, just like other students in QCHS). Below are statements from two higher section students reflecting on the location of their classrooms.

 Parang meron na ngayon [discrimination sa location ng room] kasi yung mga higher section, dyan na kami nakaano sa taas tapos pinaayos pa nila yan. Yung mga lower section ngayon nandoon na sila sa lumang building... yun na yung ginagamit nila.  Kailangan po kasi kami dyan para malayo sa ingay [at] makapagconcentrate.

 Higher section students are given more mental electives than other students. Below are

statements of two participants from Einstein.

Electives ng section 1:Filipino Journalism, English [journalism], at saka computer class.

 Last year, isa lang po yung teacher ng computer [hindi katulad] ngayon dalawa na kaya meron narin pong [computer elective] sa lower section... tulad ng Faraday, section 11…

The participant who said the last statement narrated to me that when they were 3rd year students (section 1), there was only one computer teacher, hence, the computer elective was offered only to higher sections. I think the prioritization is implicit. Whenever materials are scarce, elites would surely be assured to be prioritized in the distribution of those materials. This could be the reason as to why our section Magnolia, like other non-star sections, had a half room unlike what the star section had. When I was in fourth year (Star section), our teacher said that we were lucky because the kind of education that we were receiving resembled that offered in private schools.

Stratification involves groups with different levels of access and acquisition of prestige, power, and material resources. Elites are likely to hegemonize control over social resources.

Since social resources are scarce, it logically follows that competition for them is inevitable. Georg Simmel posits that people pursue their aspirations whenever they see it feasible (i.e. relation of distance and value: goals that are not too close yet not too far) for them to succeed in their goals (Ritzer, 2003, pp. 52-53). Since elites are in better positions for hegemony, and there are many elites, it follows that there would be competition of elites. The theory of Distance and Value would probably explain why section 2, 3, and other higher sections challenge the rule of section 1. Sections two and three are “positions” with greater thirst for power (prestige, or access to material resources) since they are near the position of the most elite (section 1). If Ralf Dahrendorf (2001) and Randall Collin’s (1975) propositions are correct i.e. that people vie for control and authority and that people don’t want to be placed in subordinate positions, then my formulation of the relationship among the higher sections would be true. Evidence for this is a statement below.

…ineexpect sa'min na kahit na section 3 lang [kami] parang gusto po nila na matalo po namin yung kakayahan ng section 1 at section 2.

This competition among higher section students would definitely produce strain at the top positions of the social structure of senior sections. Hence, maintenance is needed to ensure order. This is implicitly the effect of encouraging students at section 1 to continue striving to be the best, so that no one could dethrone them from their elite position.

Yung mga teacher lagi nilang sinasabi sa'min… na you should do better than that.

Higher section students try to embody the ideals of the school, to continue serving as the model students for lower section students, they carry the pressures of being outstanding in the student politics (relation of power and deference among students) because they are likely to face the consequences when they failed to do so.

Sa amin po kasi section 1, kailangan lagi mameet yung expectation pero nagkaroon na rin po ng pagkakataon na hindi po [namin] nameet yung expectation nila kaya parang nadown kami tapos naikwento pa nila sa ibang section kaya yung tingin nila sa section 1 parang hindi rin pala ganun. Sa’min, isang pagkakamali... nagiging big deal na sa lahat.  Sa’min kasi... hindi rin maiiwasan na macompare kami sa last batch... laging ikwekwento na mas magaling daw yung ganito, masmaganda yung attitude, kaya kami siguro... nadidisappoint din kami pero wala naman kaming magagawa kundi... higitan din yung isang batch.

...yung tingin ng mga teacher sa'min… hindi parehas ng tingin nila sa lower section kasi kung kami po down na sa kanila ano pa po yung aasahan nila sa ibang mga section…

As one can see now, higher section students are pressured by the school system to make real the expectations, attributes, and labels tagged/verbalized to them in many occasions (class room discussions, projects, comparisons etc.). This accounts to the self-fulfilling prophecy first

used by Robert K. Merton in 1948 (Shepard, 1993, p. 370). Merton described it as “in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true” (quoted in Webb & Sherman, 198, p. 475). Merton used the self-fulfilling prophecy to discuss deviancy. Since there are two basic types of deviancy (i.e. positive and negative), it is applicable to higher section students by contending that they are positive deviants. Edwin Lemert supports this contention when he said that positive deviants (i.e. honor students, heroes, saints, scientists etc.) should also be part of the concerns of Labeling Theorists (Hawkins & Tiedeman, 1975). Higher section students at QCHS were secondary deviants because they have accepted and enliven the labels and expectations tagged/given to them by entities inside the school. I want to emphasize now that such embracing and acceptance of roles are not solely the result of individual decisions. As evident in the statements, higher section students were also enabled by the school system to be such (remember that they were prioritized in the distribution of scare social resources). Thus, there are structural workings operating hand-in-hand with role acceptance and role performing. One structural working is the intensification of competition in each higher section, especially section 1, due to the homogenization of students at that section (most students at section 1 were driven to compete for supremacy in grades. Since they were homogenized, and most of them have individualistic orientations in life with strong inclination for academic achievement, they seek distinction by aspiring supremacy—these practices, and the relations resulting from those practices, became repetitive and regularized among higher students, thus forming a social structure on its own). Later in this paper, structural aspects will be very evident. As of now, statements below by higher section respondents would indicate that they were secondary deviants.

Kailangan po namin tanggapin kasi parang naging challenge narin po sa aming yung tinawag kaming cream of the crop… parang kailangan naming mameet iyon kasi kung hindi… parang madadawon kami ng… ibang section [tapos sasabihin] ‘ah mas matalino pa kami dyan, mas magaling pa kami dyan, kaya parang naging challenge narin po sa'min yung mga sinasabi ng teacher namin. … yung mga expectations ng teachers kailangan mameet namin yun kaya yung ginagawa ko bale ako yung tumatayong leader sa kanila. Ginagawa kong maging united kami para yung tingin sa’min ganoon talaga kataas, mameet namin yung expectations…  … kapag nasa section 1 ka o nasa higher section ka nakakaimpluwensya po yung ginagawa ng mga kaklase mo. Kung masipag po sila, magsisipag ka, eh kapag nasa lower [section] makikita mo na yung mga kaklase mo tinatamad, syempre tatamarin ka rin po … kapag nasa higher section kasi syempre iisipin mo yung mga classmate mo magagaling kaya gagalingan mo rin kasi ayaw mong mapag-iwanan. ‘Pag yung mga classmate mo naman mga tamad, syempre sabi nga nila ‘pag yung kamatis, isang bulok na kamatis na[ka]hawa sa ibang kamatis, syempre lahat mabubulok na.

 

As our focus group discussion progresses, seemingly interesting matters came into the conversation, especially with regards to power. I think students could not exercise power in its fullest sense because they are students (i.e. subordinated by the school administration). A more applicable dimension of power to students is its symbolic dimension, intertwined with prestige.

I learned from the participants that no elections for student council officership were held in the past two years. Officers of the Supreme Student Government (SSG) were all appointed except for year level representatives. All appointees came from section 1 of every year level. Out of the 7 legitimate student organizations in QCHS, five were ruled by Einstein (i.e. top positions President, Vice-president, and Secretary all came from section 1)…

…tapos yung MAPEH nasa section 2, tapos nahawakan po kasi ng third year yung TLE kaya parang ano po, tapos yung mga posisyon din po, meron din naman pong nasa [sections] 1, 2, 3, 4 na mga officers.

When I asked why Einstein has dominated the primary positions on almost all major academic organizations, a response distressed me.

... extracurricular daw kasi ‘pag officer [ka] kaya sa [section] 1 nalang daw ibigay.

The respondent is referring to the point system used by public schools in determining the final rank of each honor student. It consists of points for the subjects taken by the student (academic) and points for his extracurricular involvements (contests joined, position in the student council, position in different academic and nonacademic organizations, position in the school’s newspaper staff, finished researches etc.).  I also learned that section Einstein led all flag ceremonies in the morning while 2nd year section 1 led all flag ceremonies in the afternoon.   The concentration of power and prestige in the higher sections, especially section 1, is evident. This contributes to the perpetuation and reification of labels, attributed and expectations for higher section students. It should be evident now that this reification and bringing into reality of expectations were backed by structural workings at QCHS, obviously outside the realm of ordinary students (appointment by the administration, belonging to a section where power and prestige are concentrated). Flag ceremonies remind me of rituals as theorized by Emile Durkheim.

A ritual is a moment of extremely high social density. Usually the more people that are brought together, the more intense the ritual. But it also heightens the contact; by going through common gestures, chants and the like, people focus their attention on the same thing. They are not only assembled, but they become overwhelmingly conscious of the group around them. As a result, certain ideas come to represent the group itself by becoming its symbols (Collins, 1994, p.190).

Durkheim believes that rituals are central to the social order. Components of rituals, overall package and the transcendence of meanings captured in symbolic representations promote legitimation. Collins argues that the theory of rituals could be integrated with conflict

theory, especially in considering the people who control the means of ritual production (Collins, 1994). Flag ceremony is a ritual in a Durkheimian sense, applied to QCHS; students and teachers were the participants, focusing their attention to the flag and to the activities in front of the stage, producing a sense of awareness as to who were the fellow participants in the ritual and a feeling of identification with them. Since high attention and valuation are given to objects symbolizing the group, people involved in the ritual production are highly regarded (ex. Priests, shamans, presidents), these people, applied to QCHS were administrators and students from section Einstein, are in the position to control the means of ritual production and consciously/unconsciously legitimize their rule over the group. Thus, flag raising contributes to the legitimacy of higher section students, especially section Einstein, as the leader of the whole student populace. Since students from Einstein and other higher sections were leaders of major academic organizations, it follows that every activity that they have undertaken, especially school programs when majority of the rest of the student population were watching, have surely contributed to the legitimacy of their rule and to the prestige accorded to their section.

It was also mentioned earlier that only sections 1 and 2 were allowed to take Filipino and English journalism, hence, their ideas have dominated the content of the school newspapers. This has contributed further to the legitimacy of their rule. In Marxian sense, they have controlled the means of mental production (I believe that they have done that unwittingly). This is implicit in a statement from a participant in Archimedes.

…opinyon po ng section 1 parang naging standard na po sa lahat ng 4th year.

It is apparent now that higher section students, especially Einstein, have largely (and unconsciously) hegemonized the control and acquisition of power, prestige, and the means of legitimation (means of ritual and mental production). This latent hegemonization of control of social resources contributed to the self-fulfilling prophecy of expectations and labels among higher section students.

Other forms of legitimation were evident in the statements of other higher section participants. These involve beliefs and rationalizations implied in the labels and expectations tagged to higher section students.

As a common observation among other schools, QCHS usually get their delegates from Einstein and/or other higher sections whenever school representation is needed for academic contests and nonacademic activities. When I asked the participants why is this the pattern, they gave me the following responses:

Kasi salang-salang na daw po sila.  

...sa tingin ko po kasi masyado pong bias yung utak ng tao, pinangak po tayo na pinapili po tayo na may choices tayo ganito, lumaki po tayo sa may mga levels, kung ako yung teacher, syempre ano yung pipiliin ko? Yung sinasabi nilang level na mataas na section 1 o yung sinasabi nilang level na mababa na section 24. Ang iisipin ko anong makukuha ko sa section 24, wala, anong makukuha ko sa section 1, syempre nadoon daw lahat ng best, syempre doon ako kukuha, doon maseset yung utak ko na kailangan doon ako kumuha kasi alam ko lahat sila magaling.

 

  Their responses were embedded on the popular conceptions and beliefs regarding higher section and lower section students. Responses below indicate legitimation due to ritualism (Mertonian sense, repetitive behavior characterized by lack of meaning and attachment).  

Parang wala lang kaming pakialam sa kanila... hindi, kasi po nakikita naman namin na kaya naman ng section 1 ihandle [kaya] po pinapabayaan na lang po namin sila na ano.  ...sanay naman po kami na yung section 1 yung laging nasa ibabaw since 1st year pa po kami...

Also, this reminds me of the unintended legitimation caused by the daily struggles in life

of common people. According to Gerhard Lenski (1966, p. 54) “the transformation of the rule of might into the rule of right is greatly facilitated by the pressures of daily life, which severely limit the political activities of the vast majority of mankind.” I would say that higher section students are busy with their projects, assignments, and other activities shouldered upon them by the school system (I was a higher section student) but these operate in a background where the school system has already secured them to be powerful over a mass of students busy with their daily activities at school (consequently having no time to question everything and to reflect substantially on what is happening on them). Lenski continued the article with this “the affairs of state in any civilized society…are directed by a small majority. The majority is largely apolitical” (Ibid).

I would content that these legitimation processes go hand in hand, are cumulative, in legitimizing the rule of higher section students, especially section 1, over the student populace. This results to a mass of students that is apolitical, non-questioning, and, to some degree, apathetic (as compared to higher section students).

Previously stated experiences, belief systems, labels and expectations, social relations, highly concentrated access and control to social resources characterize a culture at the higher sections very different from the culture found at the lower sections.

Magakiba po... unang-una po sa way ng pagpasok po sa classroom. Kasi nung tinitignan ko po yung mga nasa... last section... parang hindi po sila ganoon kaaware sa oras na tumatakbo. Yung pagpasok nila parang wala lang po sa kanila. Nakikita ko pa po sila na kumakain sa canteen...  Pero sinasabi po [sa’min] ng mga teacher na ‘wag mo silang gayahin, hindi ka nila katulad...

 These make higher section students different from lower section students. Anyone

claiming that both student subpopulations are treated the same and have very similar subcultures is very superficial and should not be taken seriously.

THE EXPENDABLES?We continue this paper by describing the situation of lower section students. I made this

to substantiate my claim that the subcultures of the two subpopulations are significantly different.

When I asked the participants from Pythagoras and Rutherford about the expectations, labels, and attributions tagged/verbalized to them (in description of them), the gave me the following adjectives: “Mahina”, “bobo”, “wala daw utak”, “tanga”, “mahina ang IQ”, “(sikat yung section sa) kalokohan”, “katarantaduhan”, and “kaguluhan.” These labels, supported by the fact that they belong to the bottom three sections, consequently generate prejudice against them.

…bakit yung ibang section diba sa higher section yung tingin nila sa lower section ganun nalang diba parang sobrang hina ng IQ diba? …sa panahon ngayon hindi na po nila alam yung mga sitwasyon na nangyayari kaya lagi nilang hinuhusgahan kaagad na kesyo mabubuntis ka kaagad, magaasawa ka kaagad, hindi muna nila tinitignan kung ano yung dapat na tignan po nila kung ganoon ba yung pananaw nung para sa amin, ganun ba yung pananaw namin na kahit ginagawa na namin lahat, yun parin yung hinuhusga sa’min...

These made them very conscious in relating to others, especially to students from sections higher than their own.

Nakakahiya lang kasi sila... maganda yung sinasabi sa kanila, eh tapos ‘pag nalaman nilang ganoon kami tinatrato... [na pinagsasalitaan ng] mga words na sinasabi namin, [na] parang gagawin [naman] namin [yung mga yun], [syempre] mahihiya kami. Kahit ngayon nahihiya kami kasi yung iba kaklase namin nang 1st year [tapos ngayon] nasa higher section na, parang nakakahiya ring makihalubilo.

My sister asked if they have made steps to get close to higher section students. Shown below is the actual conversation:

Marie: Dumating ba yung instance na kayo yung nakihalubilo pero hindi nila kayo inimik?

Participant: Meron.

Marie: Ano yung mga times na yon, pakidescribe.

Participant: [Sa] Science camp... at saka yung mga competition.

Marie: Hindi nila kayo iniimik?

Participant: Hindi po.

Marie: Pero gumawa [ba] kayo ng way para imikin nila kayo?

Participant: Oo, noong Science camp nga po, sumali kami sa games pero... kunwari kaming dalawa [yung galing sa higher section], kaming dalawa lang [yung] naguusap, ok sasali ka [lower section student] pero hindi ka nila ieentertain.

Charles H. Cooley (as cited in Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p. 56) offered a theory on the principal conditions that favor social stratification, which the researcher thinks would be useful; these principal conditions are “(1) little communication and enlightenment, (2) a slow rate of social change, and (3) marked difference in the constituent parts of the population.” I think the three conditions have one in common i.e. continuously reproduced segregation of unequal groups. Instances like the one previously quoted contributes to the reproduction and actualization of myths concerning each group. Such experiences promote segregation and perpetuate the differences between the subcultures of higher section and lower section students.

…noong una [pong]... pumasok ako sa section 1, [yung] unang tingin ko sa section 1, yan mayayabang yan kasi galing ako sa lower section eh. [statement from a higher section participant]

Explicit in the statements of the respondents is the shame they felt whenever someone reminds them of their very subordinate status (during associations with students from sections higher than their own, during inter-section comparisons, during jokes, and I think during interviews like the one I did). The conversation below reminds me of Erving Goffman’s stigma.

Marie: Sinong hindi nakikihalubilo, sila o kayo?

Participant: Sila po, syempre kami naman... always open, sila lang [ang ayaw]. Para kaming... duming ayaw dikitan.

“Erving Goffman has observed that stigmatized individuals are defined by ‘normals’ as ‘not quite human’…Goffman contends further that when we stigmatized an individual, we…” (Webb et. al., 1989, 472)

exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his life-chances. We construct a stima-theory, an ideology to explain his inferiority and to account for the danger he represents. (Ibid.)

Stigmatization of individuals operate in conjunction with the Self-fulfilling prophecy first used by Robert Merton in explaining the closure of a bank due to a false belief by the people that it would soon be bankrupted (Shepard, 1993, p. 370). From Merton’s own words, the passage below gives us a more dramatic conception of what may happen when stigmatization occurs due to prevalent belief systems surrounding a group or an individual.

…The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning. (quoted in Webb et. al., 1989, p. 475)

This might have become true in the lives of the participants, as belief systems often translate into situations that are more concrete. Below are some of the statements where the participants have shared discriminatory practices against them.

[sa mga activities at tests]…sasabihin ‘wag... nyo na gawin ito, mahihirapan lang kayo eh, yung mga matataas na section [nga] nahihirapan, [kayo] pa kaya.  ...sa periodical [test], [sa] iba po yung binibigay nila 60 [items], ‘pag samin 50 lang. Ganon kasi yung sa TLE po namin... kaya naman naming gawin [yun eh] kung pagaaralan namin.

(May bakal sa ilalaim ng upuan namin) Para hindi na namin kayang iano, magugulo daw kami... at saka ang pangit po ng building namin kasi para kaming preso  (maraming rehas doon sa building namin) para hindi makatakas yung mga estudyante.

[Sa pamimili ng electives]Kasi po ano, kunwari ako teacher, kunwari ganito yung tuturuan ko Pythagoras at saka Rutherford, Roentgen... yun lang po yung aanuhin namin, hindi na po kami pwedeng ‘ay doon ako sa computer, gusto ko sa ano, hindi kami pwedeng mamili. Kung ano po yung napili ng teacher doon kami.

Physical and verbal abuses were also reported to me during the FGD. Statements below testify to this.

Tulad ng nanghahampas... yung parang maiba lang ng tanong mo tapos lagi nyang bibigyan ng malisya tapos yun nanghahampas na, nagmumura, lahat minsan nambabato sya ng eraser nasutok na ako, nakurot eh... One way of legitimizing acts of violence is to rationalize it, giving one side more weight

than the other.

Kasi po... depende rin naman sa mga estudyante minsan abuso na rin yung ibang estudyante, masyado naring makulit, ganun, hindi narin nakikinig sa mga teacher...

Hindi rin, kasi minsan yung mga estudyante rin naman yung nagpupush sa mga teacher para sabihin [at] gawin sa kanila yun eh, kaya nakadepende rin talaga sa mga estudyante kung ano yung magiging disisyon ng mga teachers.

I am not against the statements given above and I think that they are partly true. However, one may wonder, as I have been wondering, if higher section students would receive similar disciplinary actions whenever they commit mistakes. I can still remember how I furiously (and shoutingly) defended my self against my adviser when I was fourth year high school (Star section; that was due to my failure, according to her, to follow certain procedures in a graduation practice. She irately rebuked me using a microphone in front of all senior students attending the

graduation practice). What I did, I think, is reasonable and right. Later I realized (not that I was wrong because I certainly was not—what I did during the graduation practice was what all students did during the graduation ceremony) that I was lucky because she did not report the case to the guidance office. This was also the case of my other classmates in the star section whenever they commit mistakes that could be brought to the guidance office. Our teachers were saying that conflicts should not reach the guidance office, as it would be a disgrace for (the sanctity) our section.

Mentioning the guidance office reminded me that when I was gathering data, I had the opportunity to interview the guidance councilor of QCHS. After going over with the guidance records, I noticed, as I was expecting, that majority of the records pertain to deviant acts committed by lower section students. A possible explanation could be this:

Concentrating low-achieving students in low-track classes seems to be harmful because it exposes them to too few positive roles” (Page, 1991 cited in Slavin 2003, pp.298-300)

Students who are assigned to high-ability groups, for instance, receive strong affirmation of their academic identify; they find school rewarding, have better attendance records, cooperate better with teachers, and develop higher aspirations. The opposite occurs with students placed in low-ability tracks. They received fewer rewards from their efforts, their parents and teachers have low expectations for them, and there is little incentive to work hard. Many [students placed in low-ability tracks] will cut their looses and look for self-esteem through other avenues such as athletics or delinquency (Rosenberg, Shooler, & Shoenbach, 1989, cited in Brinkerhoff et. al., 2002, p.318: emphasis mine)

Motivation to study while considering the kind of people that they are with in the lower sections became the theme later in the conversation.

Participant: Pwedeng slight kasi pagnakasama namin yung ibang section, at least machachallenge kami sa kakayahan nila, at least pagnachallenge kami magagawa din namin yung gagawin nila. Tapos, parang hindi nakakabuti kasi parang madadown to earth ka ‘pag kunwari nakasagot sila tapos ikaw hindi.

Marie: Hini ka ba nachachallenge sa mga kaklase mo ngayon?

Participant: Ngayon? Siguro nachachallenge lang ako sa utak nya, hindi sa iba kong classmate...

Marie: So kailangan mong mainspire…

An explicit self-fulfilling prophecy theme could be perceived from the statement below.

Minsan tapos sinasabi nila na ‘kaya ayaw ko humawak ng ganitaong section kasi puros bobo... Sakit sa ulo, ang daming kaso... Pinupush nila kami na gawin kung ano yung hinuhusga nila sa amin.

…yung iba po parang pagsinalpak ng sinalpak sa utak nila na hanggang doon lang sila, hanggang doon nalang [din] po yung naaabot nila [a response from a higher section student]

The first statement exemplifies what the excerpt below is telling.

Teacher expectations are manifested in the teachers’ behavior toward and treatment of individual children and their grouping of the children in classroom situations. Children pick up the subtle cues; the “self-fulfilling prophecy” can cause them to believe that they have certain abilities and can influence future behaviors. Many teachers in schools with low-achieving students become discourage about the children’s ability to learn. Their expectations for student learning are reduced, creating that self-fulfilling prophecy in which teachers expect less and students give less. (Ballantine, 1997, p.76: emphasis mine)

It would be wrong to say that all the teachers of lower section students do these things. Surely there are others showing empathy with them.

Participant: Meroon, [close kami sa] teacher namin sa Math, si Sir ***

John: Lahat o pili?

Participants: (collective) Pili.

John: Paano kayo namimili?

Participant: Batay po sa ginagawa nilang pagtrato sa amin... at saka... [pagnagtu]turo sya nakakainspire at saka matotodo ka talag[ang] magaral.

Participant: ...kung sino lang din yung kaya kang pakisamahan... kasi yung ibang teacher... plastic eh, kaya namamlastic din ako.

Marie: Eh pano ‘pag mahigpit pero natututo kayo?

Participants: (collective) Ok lang.

Participant: Nakakainspire.

Similarly, relationships and interactions with other higher section students do not go badly as others are.

John: ...hindi ko magets, may kaibigan kayo na higher section [pero] hindi kayo naiilang sa [kanila]. Pero sa iba? Participants: (collective) Oo.

 Participant: Oo kasi friend mo sya, magkakilala na kayo... nagkapalagayan na [kasi] kayo ng loob eh. Yung iba, hindi mo pa naman kakilala diba?

This reminds me of Alfred Schutz's typifications. Whenever we do not personally know the one that we have been meeting, we rely on typifications (resembling like stereotypes) to pigeon hole people, to aid our understanding on what is happening on us, and to guide us in treating people that are strangers to us. The set back for typifications is that our knowledge about the people that we have been typifying is limited to the information supplied by the typifications. Since typifications, stereotypes, labels, attributes, and expectations are cultural constructions, they have the same function of serving as tools in prejudging people. These cultural constructions carry vague meanings and do not necessarily reflect the truth. The use of typifications whenever higher and lower section students meet further contributes to the segregation process between them.

Emphasis should also be made to the way lower section students accept the labels that other tagged to them. Not all labels are accepted. Implicitly, there is persistence to combat negative labels and regain their personality as distinct, interesting, and worthy. Therefore, they are primary deviants.

siguro yung iba tinanggap namin kasi alam naman namin na tam rin yung sinabi nila Kunwari sabihan nila kami ng bobo, syempre para sa amin masakit yun, per minsa... hindi nalang namin dinaramdam kasi paulit-ulit na, alam naman namin sa sarili namin na kahit nandoon lang kami sa section na iyon may kaya kaming patunayan...

 Lower section students are not inclined to join student organizations. This may be due to

lack of incentives (ex. Participation of higher section students to organizations is accompanied by special points for honor placement), lack of motivation, lack of information, and no/limited access to elite positions (remember the relationship between distance and value). This contributes to the hegemonization of power and prestige by the higher section students.  

Hindi naman kami naiinform doon diba? Naiinform! Kaso nahihiya kami sumali.  ... baka mapahiya lang kami.  Hindi naman kami pinapasali eh.  ...nainform [kami] pero hindi nia kami inuubligang sumali.  Oo... pili lang yung inuobligang sumali, yung mga [nasa] matataas na section.  Sinasabi lang nila sa amin pero parang wala silang balak na isali talaga kami.

Discriminatory practices, physical and verbal violence, negative low-expecting labels cumulate, hindering lower section students to compete with higher section students in a fair and square fight. The statements, and meanings implied to them, show how lower section students became “expendables” in the school system. They are partly victims of the workings of the social structure. Their conditions would likely be perpetuated as cultural constructions operate side by side with the social structure. Hence, lower section students became lower section students not only through their individual workings, but through systematic and symbolic segregation and discrimination. I would contend that intentionality of the administrators and teachers have NOT caused this to happen, as I said, these practices are traditional, hence cultural and systematic. As I have been saying throughout this paper, there are social structures and cultural constructions constraining the way we think and perceive of things. These cultural and societal structures do not imply however, that possible reforms and change are impossible.

CLOSING WORDS

I have many things to tell, but time didn’t allow me to do so. Transcribing audio recordings is very difficult and has consumed most of my time. I could have discussed implications of students sectioning in a macro level, this time exploring its relationship with the socioeconomic variable, with the habitus and the field, mobility, structuring of the mind, legitimation of certain kinds of intelligences, and perpetuation of social classes. Perhaps I could do that when I write my thesis (in the future). That time, drawing all the data, information, and theories that I have gathered since my first conceptualization of the topic, all together in an interrelated (sociological) manner (a tome). As for this time, I am apologizing if the reader would feel hanging on the air. Since I haven’t finished my endeavor yet, I do not feel justified in giving conclusions to my work. My ideas are implied throughout the paper, from the first word written on the first page to this last word.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballantine, J. H. (1997). The Sociology of Education: A Systematic Analysis, 4th ed., NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2002). Essentials of Sociology, 5th ed., CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, Inc.

Bryjak, G. J. & Soroka, M. P. (2001). Sociology: Changing Societies in a Diverse World, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Collins, R. (1975). Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

Collins, R. (1994). Four Sociological Traditions, NY: Oxford University PressColon, S. M. (2002). General Sociology: A Simplified Approach, QC: National Book Store, Inc. Cruz, I. A. (1999, May 3). Quality Education as Key to Success, Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 8Dahrendorf, R. (2001, orig. pub. 1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. In D.

Grusky (Ed.).Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, 2nd ed., Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 105-111

Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. (2001). The New IQism: Intelligence, ‘Ability’ and Rationing of Education. In J. Demaine (Ed.). Sociology of Education Today, NY: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Hawkins, R & Tiedeman, G. (1975). The Creation of Deviance: Interpersonal and

Organizational Determinants, Ohio: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company and A. Bell and Howell Company.

Lenski, G. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Lumpkins, B., Parker, F., & Hall, H. (January-February, 1991). Instructional Equity for Low Achievers in Elementary School Mathematics. The Journal of Education Research, 83 (3), 135.

Marger, M. N. (1999). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company

Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. In G. Massey (Ed.), Readings for Sociology (pp. 13-18), 3rd ed., New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc.

Ritzer, G. (2003). Contemporary Sociological Theory and its Classical Roots: The Basics, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Ronquillo, A. A., Peralta, A. R., Salcedo, L. L., & Zaide, C. A., Jr. (1989). General Sociology with Introduction to Anthropology, Manila: Goodwill Trading Corporation, Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 7th ed., Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Shepard, J. M. (1993). Sociology, 5th ed., MN: West Publishing CompanyWebb, R. B. & Sherman, R. R. (1989). Schooling and Society, 2nd ed., NY: McMillan Publishing

Company Zulueta, F. M. & Parasol, M. S. (2004). General Psychology, Mandaluyong City: National Book

Store, Inc.

APPENDIX

Transcription for Higher Section Students in a focused group discussion at Quezon City High School on February 25, 2010, 2:00 pm-3:15 pm. Participants were from Sections (1) Einstein, (3) Archimedes, and (4) Aristotle.

John2: Ok, so yung problem ko, diba nakagawa na kayo ng research?

Participants: (collective3) Yes

John: Thesis ba talaga?

Participants: (collective) hindi naman

John: Ah joke joke lang... ganyan din ako noong high school ako eh... How does traking affect the students’ self concepts, aspirations, and access to prestige, power, and material resources within a given school system? Prestige, anong ibig sabihin noon? Pagiging sikat... Power? The ability to impose one’s will over others even against their will, so kung sakasakaling estudyante kita pagkatapos sinabi ko tumayo ka kung hindi ibabagsak kita, tatayo siya kahit hindi nya gusto... because of my power. Then access to material resources... halimbawa yung specific na ganitong facility, pang higher section lang ba sya o pang lower section lang ba sya? ...Kaya may pagka [critical]4 nga yung tipo kong ipursue kasi nangwengwestyon sya ng sistema ng school. Isa pa nga pala, walang magchichismis kung ano yung... mangyayari rito okey... Ok, unang tanong, ano ano yung mga labels o kaya yung mga adjectives na itinatawag sa inyo, sa section ninyo? Yung mga adjectives na tinatawag sa section ninyo kapag [for] example lumalaban [kayo], ‘pag nakikita kayo... yung iniisip sa inyo ng mga tao... kasi minsan [yung] iniisip eh naveverbalize sya kaya... natatag, yung reaksyon ng mga teacher sa inyo kapag kinocompare kayo sa ibang sections... sino yung gustong magsalita? Okey sige ***5

2 John was the interviewer (the researcher), Marie, his younger sister, was his assistant interviewer. 3 The word collective here refers to chorus answers. However, in the actual audiotape, one may hear jumbled responses as participants might have been simultaneously discussing the topic with the researcher, his cointerviewer, and/or with other particpants. A rough rule taken by the researcher in transcribing the conversation as recorded by the audiotape is to describe the answer as “collective” whenever three or more respondents simultaneously gave the same answer.

4 The researcher believes that his editing does not (significantly) alter the substance of the meaning imbeded in the conversation. Editing was made to make gray (ambigous) areas more understandable, to eliminate non significant passages (especially those past personal experiences that the researcher has shared with the participants), to skip dead airs, and to make tautologous statements more concise. Anyone who wants to check personally the audiorecordings and do his own transcribing to check if the researcher failed to do his duty of accurately bringing into the lime light the participants views on student sectioning is welcome after 1 year of this paper’s submission (except, of course if the critic is from the UP and/or PUP Department of Sociology).

5 Names were omitted to protect the respondents. Also, on the following pages, no names will appear except that of the researcher and his assistant. Focus group discussion involves simultaneous and interactive talking, as done in the natural way of talking to friends (barkada). Since there is insufficient time to know the respondents and memorize their names (and their respective voices), the researcher lost track in knowing who said this and that. Hence, the word “participant” refers to a real life respondent who said such but could not be specifically identified by the researcher.

Participant: Yung sa’min po... lagi nilang iniisip sa’min [na kami ay] cream of the crop. Dapat... role model, [at] saka dapat laging kami yung magsimula ng maganda kasi kami raw yung gagayahin... dapat daw extraordinary... kami.

John: Extraordinary... yeah, ano pa? Sino pa [ang] gustong magsalita? Ikaw *** may naiisip ka ba? Don’t be ashamed ha, wala namang makakarinig nito eh ako lang... sige... sino yung gustong magreact tungkol doon?

Participant: Sa’min po lagi pong kinokwestyon ng mga teacher namin na maingay po kami...

John: Anong section kayo?

Participant: Aristotle [section 4]... pa’no, sinasabi sa’min ng mga teacher na ang iingay namin pero parang wala naman kaming mga utak...

John: Maingay, maingay daw kayo? Sino pa yung gustong magreact? Tungkol doon, sige.

Participant: Since po na kasama kami sa... mataas na section so nageexpect po sila na kaya namin, magaling kami, na hindi kami lelevel sa mga lower na hindi ko po alam kung bakit nila nasasabi ta[pos] po kapag hindi po namin na meet yung expectation nila parang ang sama-sama ng loob ng mga teacher.

Participant: Ay eto, kasi section 1 po kami dapat expected po sa’min na yung mga gawain namin is iba sa mga ginagawa ng lower section, dapat mas mataas kami, dapat kami po yung mangunguna at saka yung maglelead sa kanila para hindi po yung pagtingin nila sa’min bumaba kasi dapat po yung tingin ng mga teacher sa’min... hindi parehas ng tingin nila sa lower section kasi kung kami po down na sa kanila ano pa po yung aasahan nila sa ibang mga section?

John: Ok, kayo naman, sige.

Participant: ... since po... section 3 po kami so ung ibang tacher ineexpect sa’min na kahit na section 3 lang [kami] parang gusto po nila na matalo po namin yung kakayahan ng section 1 [at] section 2, na hindi porket section 3 lang kami, yung kelangan po yung palagi nalang pong section 1 yung mataas... kailangan daw po pati daw po kami natataasan din daw po namin.

John: ... ok ano pa? Kayo, wala ba kayong naiisip? Sige ibuhos nyo na rito hindi naman nila ichichismis yan eh... tayo-tayo lang nakakaalam.

Participant: ... yung mga teacher lagi nilang sinasabi sa’min kapag may... pinapagawa sila tapos nagawa namin pero sinasabi nila na you should do better than that, dapat mero’ng ka pang ibubuga kaya lang... kasi nga po section 3 lang kami sinasabi na sayang pwede... sanang maging... mas mataas pa yung maabot mo kaya lang hindi mo pinag-ige yung gawain mo kaya hindi mo naabot yung dapat mong [maabot]...

John: Ok sino pa?... mga naiisip, gustong sabihin, kahit ano yan... actually makakatulong ito sa policy making ng school ninyo, kaya ko pinili yung 4th year kasi kahit anong effect yung [magagawa] ko sa inyo, kahit papa’no least na yung parang... unethical... effect na madadala nyo sa mga lower [at more advanced] year[s]. So what [does it] mean? Kumbaga para pag sinabi na halimbawa nilelabel ako na bobo... hindi ko na iisipin yun kasi graduating na ako... Kaya 4th year yung pinili ko kasi kayo yung may [mas maraming] karanasan. Ok, any labels bukod sa pagiging matalino... ang taas-taas ng expectations, ano pa? Role model, cream of the crop... kasi nalabel narin ako nyan. Ano pa ang [mga] adjectives na ginagamit ng mga teachers ninyo? ...section 1 at saka section 3 lang ba ang nandito?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po, may [section] 4.

John: Section 4 naman... wala bang reaction? Magkakaparehas ba kayo ng [mga] teacher[s]?

Participants: (collective) Yung iba.

John: ... ano, wala na? Ok, second question: sino-sino yung mga tumatawag sa inyo [ng mga yun]?

Participants: (collective) Teachers.

John: Karamihan teachers diba? Dumating ba sa punto na yung mga labels na ginagamit dito sa school, nakakarating sa mga magulang nyo pagkatapos tinatag narin kayo ng ganoon? Halimbawa... sinasabi na anak matalino ka kailangan magganyang-ganyan ka... wala? Ok, so hindi nakakaapekto yun, kumbaga kung ano yung meroon dito sa school, dito lang nakocontain, Ok... sa mga kabarkada? May mga times ba na selective kayo sa kung sino yung kakaibiganin nyo?

Participant: Opo.

John: Sige... example... nangyari kasi ito sa’kin noong lower section pa ako na tipong iwas kami sa section 1 pagkatapos noong naging section 1 naman ako, iwas kami sa lower section. Nanyari ba iyon sa inyo? ....hindi gaanong halata?

Participant: Hindi po sa’kin nangyari pero... yung classmate ko po [sa section 1] sinabihan sya ng teacher namin na... alam mo naman na nasa honor ka... kailangan mong mamaintain yun... [eh] nagkaroon sya ng boyfriend na, hindi naman po lower section pero malapit lang po sa’min kaya parang tinatatak ng teacher sa’min na kailangan yung kakaibiganin mo tapos magfocus ka huwag mong pabayaan yung pagaaral mo kasi parang yung kakaibiganin mo o magiging boyfriend mo yun yung makakasira sa... goal mo.

John: Ah ok may mga ganoon pa bang instances?

Marie: Halimbawa sa friendships... for example lower section makikipagfriend sa mga higher para makatulong sa assignment. Wala? Sa mga test... Meroon?

Participant: Meroon syempre parang ginagawa na namin iyon para makatulong.

Marie: Anong case?

Participant: ...kumbaga yung sa... mga itetest na’min... bibigyan lang din namin sila ng... idea kung ano [yung itetest].

John: Ah ok, diba may mga labels tayong pinagusapan kanina? Ang malaking tanong [eh kung] tanggap nyo ba yung mga expectations na nakakabit doon sa labels...? Diba tinatawag kayong cream of hte crop? Kailangan taasan nyo raw yung performance ninyo, tanggap nyo ba sya? ...

Participant: Kailangan po... kasi... yun po talaga [yung mga expectations] simula palang po ng school year... kasi po dati po akong section 2 noong 3rd year tapos first time ko lang mapunta ng section 1 [ngayon]. Noong pagpasok palang po namin, yun na po yung unang-uang salitang binitiwan ng mga teacher namin na napunta ka rito hindi dahil naappoint ka kundi kailangan dito ka talaga para ipakita mo yung kaya mo o yung best mo kasi nandito ka dahil meroon kang dapat gampanan na tungkulin na dapat na ikaw mismo yung gumawa dahil yun nga napabilang ka dito. Hindi sa ginusto na mapabilang ka dito kundi [dito] ka talaga.

John: Any reactions pa? Sabagay parang nagkakahiyaan pa tayo dito, wala na ba kayong idadagdag pa doon? Parang ito na yung opportunity ninyo para kung meroon man kayong gustong sabihing masama sa teacher ninyo, o kaya sa school na ito, sabihin nyo na kasi gagamitin din ito sa policy making. Hindi naman talaga lalabas yung pangalan ninyo, sinasabi ko sa inyo yun kasi pwede nyo akong idemanda ‘pag nangyari yun.

Participant: Ako kailangan ko tanggapin kasi parang naging challenge narin po yung tinawag kaming cream of the crop... parang kailangan naming mameet iyon kasi kung hindi... parang madadown kami ng... ibang section [tapos sasabihin] ah mas matalino pa kami dyan, mas magaling pa kami dyan, kaya parang naging challenge narin po sa’min yung mga sinasabi ng teacher namin.

John: Ok, ikaw *** may masasabi ka ba?

Participant: Wala po.

Marie: Tingin nyo ba deserv[ing] kayo sa section nyo? Deserving ka ba sa section mo o mas gusto mong mas mataas pa yung section mo? [O] nalelabel ka lang [gamit ang mga nabanggit na kanina] kaya nalagay ka sa section mo?

John: Nalagay ka sa section blank kasi?

Participant: Sa tingin ko, deserving naman ako kasi based sa grade ko deserving naman sya pero noong 3rd year ako kaso, kasi may mga teacher na... parang hindi tama yung grade na ibinibigay nila kaya napunta ka sa ganyang section kasi noong 3rd year ako yung teacher

ko sa Filipino, ginawa ko naman lahat kaso yung grade na binigay nya sa’kin hindi [ko deserved] kaya napunta ako sa section 4...

Marie: Kayo, deserving ba kayo o tingin nyo mas angat pa yung grade nyo pero nagkaroon ng kabulukan ng sistema kaya kayo nandito?

Participant: Hindi, deserving naman po kasi sa grade ko, pinaghirapan ko din yun.

Marie: So kaya naging section 4 ka. So [tingin] mo yung pinaghirapan mo, pang section 4 lang hindi pang section 1?

Participant: Hindi, kasi yun naman yung binigay sa’king grade ng mga teacher.

Marie: So tatanggapin mo na yun?

Participant: Okey lang... kasi yun naman [yung] binigay sakin at saka yun naman yung para sa akin [na] pinaghirapan ko[ng]... grade...

Participant: Ako sa tingin ko hindi ko po deserve... Ok lang naman sa akin na section 4 ako pero kung papipiliin ako mas tingin ko po kasi mas deserving ako sa [mas] higher [section] kasi po noong 3rd year po ako transferee po kasi ako so napunta po ako sa lower section, ang... nakikita ko pong dahilan iba po kasi yung grading na binibigay nila sa higher at sa lower kaya po hanggang [section] 4 lang po [yung naabot ng grade ko].

Marie: In what way na iba yung grading?

John: Mamaya dadaan tayo dyan. Ok sa iba?

Marie: Ikaw, deserving ka ba?

Participant: Ako po... kasi po... noong 3rd year ako section 1 na po ako kay lang meroon po namang mga factors na nakakaapekto para magbago yung performance mo kaya ngayong 4th year naging... section 3 ako, feeling ko po kung yung sa... mental ability lang po... feeling ko pong mas deserve ko pa yung [mas] higher [section]. Kaya lang kasi meroon din some attitude na hindi tama, parang tinatamad din minsan kaya... naging section 3.

Participant: Ako naman po deserving naman po mgaing section 3 kasi alam ko naman po yung kakayahan ko, tapos yung mga grades ko naman po noong 3rd year mukhang... ok naman para sa section 3, tapos alam ko naman po na ginagawa ko naman po yung lahat para po mapunta sa higher section.

Marie: Pa’no mo naman nalaman na yung grades mo ay pang section 3 at hindi pang section 1?

Participant: ...kasi alam naman natin na yung mga grades ng mga [nasa] section 1, talagang... mga 89 pataas... alam ko naman kasi kung hanggang saan yung... kakayahan ko.

Marie: So 89 below yung nakikiha mo?

Participant: Hindi, alam naman po natin na talagang mataas po talaga yung [average] sa mga [nasa] section 1... compare naman po sa mga grades na nakukuha ko.

John: So basically, naniniwala kayo sa validity ng grades? Doon sa grades na binibigay ng [mga] teacher ninyo, na valid sila, na totoong-totoo sila...

Participants: (collective) Hindi po...

John: Hindi naman, kasi mga nagaral yan eh... Ano, any reactions about that? Wala?

Marie: Validity ng grades?

Participant: Hindi po, kasi nga meroon kaming teacher ngayon na... nung nakita ko po yung class record nya sa table... yung quizzes ko po, yung... equivalent nya 78 lang. Kasi pangapat po ako sa class record, yung tatlo po na nauna sa’kin, nasa line of 8 tapos nung tinignan ko po yung schore nila sa quizzes, kasi alam ko naman po na... mas mataas yung quizzes ko, mas mataas po yung total na nakuha ko sa quizzes pero pagdating po sa percentage... biglang nagiba , parang hindi rin tama yung pagcompute ng grade.

Marie: Tingin mo ba may mali sa calculation?

Participant: Yes

Marie: Bakit hindi ka nagreklamo?

Participant: Noong... tinatanong ko po sya kung paano nyo po kinocompute yung percentage ng quizzes, iniba nya po yung topic.

Marie: Sa inyo sa mga teacher nyo, may nagkaganyan na [ba]? For example sabi mo nga kanina diba you gave your best tapos nakita mo yung grade [mo na] parang iba.

Participant: Oo, ganoon kasi pag iba yung...

Participant: Para kasing yung iba may favorite eh.

Marie: May favoritism?

Participant: Oo ganoon.

Participant: May ganoon... pero kung may ayaw rin sya na estudyante... bababaan nya yung bigay ng grade. Kahit na sabihin na... ginawa nya lahat, kung ayaw nya dyan, yun yung ibibigay nya.

Participant: Kami naman ate, meroon sya na binibigyan ng plus na hindi naman makatwiran. Yung kahit na po, kunwari magpapasa kami ng project... yung time... po [na]yun... yung first 20 na magpapasa, bibigyan nya... po yun ng plus 3... direct to the card.

Marie: Sa inyo? Diba cream of the crop nga kayo, alam ko naglalaban kayo sa points eh kasi point system sa inyo diba? May nagyari ba na naungasan lang kayo ng isang puntos eh tingin nyo mas higit pa yung ability nyo [sa taong yun]?

Participant: Kasi sa’min po hindi namin tinitignan yung mga points kasi parang sa amin fair lang din po... pero meroon din kaming mga classmates na kapag kunwari nataasan mo lang sya ng isang puntos, parang malaking bagay na sa kanya yun kasi naghahabol po sya [sa honor roll]... may mga ganoon po talagang instances.

Marie: Kayo?

Participant: ...tinatanim lang naman po namin sa isip namin, yung... mga nasabi ng mga teachers namin nang 3rd year [na] hindi po sila yung gumagawa ng grade namin, kami po yung gumagawa ng grade namin. Yung grade na ginagawa namin, sila lang po yung nagtatago’t nagcocompute kaya wala po kaming karapatang magreklamo doon sa grade na nakukuha namin kung alam naman namin na yun talaga yung deserving naming makuha.

Marie: Sa tingin mo kung ano yung pinagsumikapan nyo, yun na yun na [yung] ilalagay sa card nyo?

Participant: Opo, kung alam mo naman pong deserving ka talaga doon bakit mo pa ipipilit yung hindi naman para sa iyo?

John: Ok, any other reactions?

Participant: Siguro kung tinatanong nyo na yung grade... sa quota namin sa pagiging section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... tingin ko po hindi po doon nasusukat iyon kasi nagiiba po yun eh, hindi naman usually constant yung intelligence na yan at saka may factors din yung paggising mo sa umaga kung badtrip ka... syempre hindi mo nabibigay yung best mo, nakakain ng lason syempre hindi ka rin makakabigay ng best mo, nagiiba rin po iyon, hindi ako naniniwala sa ganoon.

John: Eh bakit ginagawa ng mga teachers?

Participant: ... sinasabi... sa’min na walang epekto yung hardwork, walang epekto yung ginagawa nyong pagsisikap, walang epekto yung pagpasok nyo dito kung hindi ninyo makikita... [kung] hanggang saan lang ba kayo, kaya ang ginawa na panuntunan... [ay] yung grade sa sinasabi...

John: Meroon pang ibang reactions tungkol doon? Yeah, tama yung sinabi nya... IQ is not constant, tama ka, at saka isa pa, yung intelligence test nila [mga psychologists], hindi kumpleto yan, according to Dr. Howard Gerner there are atleast 7 types of intelligences

pero yung sinasama lang sa intelligence tests ay Math, Science, English eh ang tanong pa’no pag hindi ka magaling sa English, so bobo ka na? Karamihan ng nga Pilipino bumabagsak [actually, nakakukuha ng mabababang scores] sa intelligence test kasi hindi nila maintindihan yung tanong [nakasulat kasi sa English]. Ah, isa pa, pa’no kung magaling sa sa history? O nasan yun doon? O kay magaling ka sa art, yeah yung abstract reasoning nila pwede yun. Pero diba meroon ding tinatawag na body smart o kaya music smart. Yung body smart yun yung sa sports, nakukuha ba yun sa [intelligence] test? Hindi, eh sa music? Hindi rin. Therefore nasan na yung validity ng intelligence test? In short joke lang yun. Hindi, pero kaya naaasar ako sa intelligence test kasi nirareify nila, ibigsabihin binibigyan nila ng sariling entity na parang hindi na natin kwequestionin, and that is the role of sociology, to question everything [hehe]... provided na may facts ka, na meroon kang data na ibaback mo yung gusto mong sabihin... Diba nalelable na kayo, na section 1 ka ganyan, section 2 ganyan ganyan, pagkatapos ang dami-daming mga adjectives na itinatag sa inyo. Ok, naaapektuhan ba yung aspiration ninyo sa buhay? Sa kung ano yung... papangarapin mo? Yung tipong dahil sa section 3 ako tapos ganito yung intelligence ko kailangan ganito lang yung tatahakin ko sa buhay? Naaapektuhan ba sya? [Participants shaking their head] Hindi naman? Sinong [may] ibang reaksyon doon? Wala? So basically hindi? So... yung paglelabel, pagsesectioning, parang [pang] competition lang sa loob ng school? [Participants nodding their head] May mga pagkakataon ba na pinepersonal ninyo yun? Example yung away between [/among] sections?

Participant: Opo kuya marami.

Participants (collective, murmuring) Yung iba po

John: Yung iba siniseryoso, yung iba hindi... Ok, so ‘pag sinabi ba na section 1 ka o kaya section 2, section 3, section 4, nakakaapekto ba iyon sa interaksyon ninyo sa loob ng class room? Example yung sinasabi na hoy ibang section yan, ‘wag kang makisali dyan...o kaya section 3 tayo kailangan buo tayo... o kaya since na section 2 tayo kailangan kalabanin natin yung section 1... may mga instances ba na ganoon?

Marie: sa mga school activities... competition ng kada section...

Participants nodding their head

John: So basically lumalabas lang iyon ‘pag may competition?

Participant: Uhm, si *** po... Noong unang pasok po [nya] talagang hindi po sya nagaano sa room namin. Gusto nya po lagi sa section 1... syempre po hindi kami nagiging close... gusto po ng adviser namin na makihalubilo sya sa amin kasi isang section [lang] kami doon eh, hindi na po sya... section 1. Parang ayaw po nila na... porket section 1 yun... hindi na po sya doon dapat na makihalubilo, dapat sa room lang namin. Syempre... pwede naman sya makihalubilo doon at saka sa section namin diba, nasa kanya naman yun eh kaya lang dapat balance lang din.

Participant: Kasi po ako nang first year ako last section po ako, section 24 tapos nang nagsecond year ako section 1 na hanggang 4th year. So noong una [pong]... pumasok ako sa section 1, [yung] unang tingin ko sa section 1, yan mayayabang yan kasi galing ako sa lower section eh. Parang yun yung tingin ko pero nung pumasok [na] ako sa section 1, [sa] una tahimik, wala pa akong pasyadong friends tapos nung tumagal-tagal, syempre 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year naging buo naman kami.‘Saka ngayong president ako ng section 1, hindi lang sa competition lumalabas yung pagiging buo ng section meroon din kasing mga projects tapos yung mga expectations ng teachers kailangan mameet namin yun kaya yung ginagawa ko bale ako yung tumatayong leader sa kanila. Ginagawa kong maging united kami para yung tingin sa’min ganoon talaga kataas, mameet namin yung expectations, yun po.

Marie: Sa inyo? Yung mga pagsusumikap nyo para mapantayan yung standard daw kuno ng section, wala kayong ginagawa? Ano [ano] ba yung mga competition na [pi]naglalaban kada section?

Participants: (collective) Basetball, academics, English, Math

John: ...diba nalelabel kayo?

Participants: (collective) Yes

John: ... nalelabel kayo ng kung ano-ano, depende sa section nyo. So parang ganito yung theme na lumalabas, kaya ba kayo nalelabel kasi nasa section kayo na yun o kaya kayo nalelabel ng ganyan kasi ganyan na kayo? Which is more likely, the first or the second?

Participants: (collective) First.

John: Na kaya kayo nalelabel kasi nasa section kayo na ganyan, so basically there are expectations. Nagkakatotoo ba yung expectations na yun?

Participants: (collective) Minsan.

Mari: Pa’no mo nasabing minsan?

Participant: Minsan kasi yung ineexpect nila... hindi naman namin kaya eh, tapos yung iba naman kaya naman.

Participant: Sa amin po kasi section 1, kailangan lagi mameet yung expectation pero nagkaroon na rin po ng pagkakataon na hindi po [namin] nameet yung expectation nila kaya parang nadown kami tapos naikwento pa nila sa ibang section kaya yung tingin nila sa section 1 parang hindi rin pala ganoon. Sa’min, isang pagkakamali... nagiging big deal na sa lahat.

Participant: Sa’min kasi... hindi rin maiiwasan na macompare kami sa last batch... laging ikwekwento na mas magaling daw yung ganito, masmaganda yung attitude, kaya kami

siguro... nadidisappoint din kami pero wala naman kaming magagawa kundi... higitan din yung isang batch.

Participant: Yung expectation po kasi na ibinibigay sa’min kahit man sabihin natin na mahirap, kailangan po talaga naming gawin kasi once po na hindi namin magawa yun, parang yun na po yung magmimitsa na ‘ay hindi nila nagawa yan, ibigsabihin hindi pala sila ganoon yung ineexpect namin, hindi yun yung inaasahan namin sa section na ito. Parang... [dahil sa pagkabigo ng] expectation na iyon... nawawalan na po sila ng pagasa na makita sa ibang section kahit pwede pa naman pong makita iyon...

John: Nangyayari talaga yun? ...ganoon ba’ng iniisip ng mga teachers na since nagfail yung section 1 o yung nasa higher section, hindi na kaya ng nasa lower?

Participants: (collective) Yun yung sinasabi po ng mga teachers.

John: Ok, so parang may prejudgment na nangyayari sa mga nasa baba. Ok.

Participant: ...yung doon po sa expectation, yung sinasabi po na kapag hindi kaya ng section 1 hindi na rin kaya ng lower section, parang hindi rin po lahat ng teacher ganoon kasi po may mga teacher din po na nagsasabi sa amin, diba po section 3 po kami, ... na ‘Oh kayo nga nakaya nyo eh pero yung section 1 hindi. Tapos may mga teachers din na yung expectations sa’min, hindi porket section 3 kami pang 3 nalang yung level namin kasi meroon kaming teacher na binigyan kami ng same test na tinest din ng section 1... ibigsabihin nageexpect din sya na kaya rin naming gawin yung mga nagagawa ng [mas] higher section sa’min.

John: Ok, mero pang iba? Sa likod naman.

Participant: Yung sa sinasabi ko po kanina, hindi ko naman po nilalahat yung teacher na nagsasabi nun, base lang po yung... sa opinyon ko kasi yun po [yung] sinabi talaga sa’min ng teacher na yun... kung hindi man po nya nahahandle yung ibang section. Yun po talaga yung pagkakasabi po nya sa amin. Pero hindi naman porket sinabi ng teacher na yun na... hindi nila nakaya, ibigsabihin padown na. Sabihin natin na sinabi nga nya yon pero hindi naman natin masasabi na porket hindi na’min nagawa hindi kay ng ibang section. Ibig sabihin, hindi ko po nilalahat yung teacher na nagsasabi na pagdown na yung section 1 down na lahat.

John: ...ok so kapag kinocompare kayo ng mga teacher ninyo, example kapag kinocompare kayo na positive naman... yung sinasabi sa inyo, anong nararamdaman nyo sa teacher nyo?

Participant: (collective) Masaya.

John: Pero kapag negative na yung nakakarating sa inyo?

Participant: (collective) Malungkot, masakit.

John: So namomroblema rin kayo?

Participant: (collective) Opo.John: Hindi naman yung tipong pasok dito labas dito?

Participants: (collective) Minsan, pagpaulit-ulit.

John: Yung paglelabel ba sa inyo, yung pagiging section 2 ganyang, nakakaapekto ba sya sa relationship nyo with the administration? The Principal, year level chairman, yung mga department heads, guidance? Ok, kapag nasa section 1 ka malapit ba kayo o malayo sa admin?

Participant: Malapit.

Participant: Ako po dapat malapit kasi... kunwari po sa flag ceremony, alam ng administration ng school na dapat section 1 yung manguna doon kaya ako as a president, syempre lumalapit din po ako sa year level chairman, sa principal, na dapat kilala ko po sila at kilala rin po nila ako, para magkaroon po kami ng magandang... interaksyon at pamamalakad dito sa school.

John: Parati bang section 1 yung naglelead ng flag ceremony?

Participants: (collective) Yes.

John: Kapag section [3] malapit ba sa admin?

Participant: Hindi po.

John: Bakit hindi?

Participant: Parang wala lang kaming pakialam sa kanila... hindi, kasi po nakikita naman namin na kaya naman ng section 1 ihandle [kaya] po pinapabayaan na lang po namin sila na ano.

Participant: At saka kasi malaki ang tiwala nila sa section 1.

Marie: Malaki?

Participant: Oo.

Marie: Buong-buo?

Participant: Opo.

Marie: Sa inyo, section 4, may tiwala ba ang admin?

Participants: (collective) Wala.

Marie: Pa’no nyo nasabi?

Participant: Mas may tiwala sila sa ano eh, sa section 1, parang walang pakialam din sila sa’min.

Participant: Parang iniisip nila eto mas kaya nila kaysa sa mga [ito] kasi mas higher sila.

Participant: Yung opinyon po ng section 1 parang naging standard na po sa lahat ng 4th year.

Marie: Nastandardize na?

Participants: (collective) Oo, parang ganoon.

Participant: ... ‘pag minsan po... kunwari kapag opening ng English month, sila [section 1 ng 2nd year at 4th year] po yung magpafacilitate ng flag ceremony. Lahat po ng clubs tapos mga student council ganoon po, student government.

John: Ok, sino dito yung kasama sa student council? Meroon ba?

Participant: Ano po, hawak po nila yung senior assembly.

John: Student council [officer] ka? Anong posisyon mo doon?

Participant: President po ako ng senior assembly.

John: Anong senior assembly?

Participant: 4th year presidents, lahat po ng presidents nagelect... SC [Student Council]f

John: Hindi, ikaw ba yung SC president?

Participant: Ah, hindi po, representative po ng 4th year.

John: Ah ok, para kasing school admin yung SSG [Supreme Student Goverment], karamihan ba ng mga officers doon nasa anong section?

Participants: (collective) One.

John: Sa tingin ninyo bakit ganoon yung trend?

Marie: Straight line up?

Participant: Ako po, kasi dalawang taon na pong... walang nangyayaring eleksyon, appointed lang po ng... administration.

Marie: Saan kinuhang section yung inaappoint nya na yun?

Participant: Opo, noong 3rd year po kami, sa section po namin, sa section 1 lang din po kinuha.

Marie: Sa inyo lang?

Participant: Opo.

Marie: Straight line up?

Participant: Hindi, hindi po ganoon. Section 1 po ng 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year, ganoon po.

John: “point system” [appointing by pointing fingers to right people]

Participant: Wala po kasing nangyaring eleksyon kaya ganoon.

John: Teka lang, eh di anong reaksyon [ng] mga nasa mababang section?

Participant: Wala, deadma lang...

Participant: Nabigla sila nang bigla nalang may sumulpot na officer ng SSG.

John: Bakit walang SSG dati? Bakit walang eleksyon?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po namin alam.

Marie: Hindi nyo alam?

Participant: Dati meroong election ang SSG

Participant: [Ngayong] araw lang na ito namin nalaman...

Participant: Yung officer, sila na pala yun... yun na pala yun...

Marie: Wala bang nagreklamo sa inyo [kung] bakit ganoon [at] walang nangyaring eleksyon?

John: Ok, access to prestige. Kapag may mga academic contests, sino yung pinapadala doon?

Participant: (collective) Section 1.

John: Tingin nyo bakit?

Participant: Kasi salang-salang na daw po sila.

John: Ok, salang-sala na.

Participant: Slang-sala DAW, DAW.

John: Bakit parang ang sama-sama ng loob mo?

Participant: ... nasasabi po nila na salang-sala na kasi nga po 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year pinagdaanan mo so kung hindi man pinagbutihan sa 1st, 2nd year, 3rd year palang [eh tanggal ka na]. Kaya napunta ka sa ganyang section [kasi] syempre kung pinagbutihan mo dapat nasa section 1 ka, ikaw dapat yung pinanglalaban pero kahit alam nga [na] magaling ka diba pinanlalaban ka pa rin naman.

Participant: ...sa tingin ko po kasi masyado pong bias yung utak ng tao, pinangak po tayo na pinapili po tayo na may choices tayo ganito, lumaki po tayo sa may mga levels, kung ako yung teacher, syempre ano yung pipiliin ko? Yung sinasabi nilang level na mataas na section 1 o yung sinasabi nilang level na mababa na section 24. Ang iisipin ko anong makukuha ko sa section 24, wala, anong makukuha ko sa section 1, syempre nadoon daw lahat ng best, syempre doon ako kukuha, doon maseset yung utak ko na kailangan doon ako kumuha kasi alam ko lahat sila magaling.

John: Ok, any reactions pa tungkol sa sinabi ni Kuya?

Marie: Oh, payag ba kayo, hindi kayo ipanlalaban sila mas madalas ipanglaban?

Participant: Hindi naman lahat ng section 1 deserving na maging section 1 eh, karamihan lang talaga sinuwerte. Meroon pa ngang napunta sa mga higher section na, example may teacher sila na dito nagaaral, napunta sila sa section 1 kasi sinipsip, pinagpilitan doon kahit hindi naman doon.

John: ...naobserve ko kasi [ito sa dati kong school] eh... may mga instances ba na yung anak ng PTA officer...

Participants: (collective) Meroon, meroon.

Respondent: Yung mga anak ng teacher, napupunta sa section 1, nahihila, sapul na sapul...

John: Teka baka meroon ditong anak ng ano ha?

Participants: (collective) Wala po, malayo po.

Participant: Sa koneksyon, may kapit.

John: Ok, tingin nyo ba pareparehas lang yung lebel ng klase ng education na itinuturo sa inyo? Example, yung klase ng English sa section 1 parehas sa English ng section 2.

Participant: Hindi po, kasi may mga teacher kami na sinasabi ‘oh sige sa inyo sandali nalang namin ituturo iyan kasi magaaksaya pa kami ng oras... mas maggugugol kami ng mahabang oras na ituro yan doon sa mga lower section, kaya ano...

Marie: Sinabi nya yan sa inyo ng direkta?

Participant: Oo, kasi... meroon kaming teacher, may pinadidiscuss lang ata... wala pang ten minutes... [ng pagdidiscuss] sa blackboard, sabi nya ‘buti pa dito nadidiscuss yan ng wala pang 10 minutes, sa lower section kailangan pang [mag]dagdag [dyan] bago pa nila maintindihan.

John: Baka naman kasi inaassume nila na naiintindihan nyo na.

Participants: (collective) Oo

Participant: Hindi rin

Participant: Sa tingin ko po hindi po talaga magkakapareho kasi unang-una magkakaiba po talaga kami ng teacher kaya pa’no natin masisiguradong pareparehas po yung naituturo... kasi maaaring pwede po na iba po yung strategy ng pagtuturo, na mabilis maintindihan ng estudyante, tapos pangalawa po sa English namin, napapansin kong magkakaiba po kami ng libro na ginagamit.

Marie: Iba yung sa section 1, iba yung sa [inyo]?

Participant: Opo, [sections] 1 & 2 po parehas pero yung sa iba pong section... nakikita ko hindi po parehas yung libro kaya minsan po na[papa]tatanong ako...

Participant: ... yung sabi kasi ng teacher [sa amin] kaya daw po naiba yung libro, dati parehas lang sila na yung color blue yung ginagamit namin [sa] section 3 kaya lang napansin siguro ng section 1 na yung color blue puro kwento po tapos yung ginagamit nila puro grammar. Doon sa grammar nagpofocus yung [kanilang libro] kaya yun yung pinagamit sa kanila. Eh yung teacher namin ewan ko doon kung bakit yung puro kwento yung ginagamit sa amin.

Participant: Depende pa rin po sa teacher.

Marie: Sa inyo, iba [ba] yung libro na ginagamit [kaysa] sa kanila?

Participant: Wala po kasi[ng libro] yung iba.

Marie: Wala kayong libro?

Participant: Hindi, meroon, iba lang talaga [yung libro namin]. Depende naman sa teacher eh.

Participant: At saka yung teacher namin hindi naman sya kumukuha ng mga lesson namin sa libro. Parang may ibang tinuturong leksyon.

Participant: Meroon [syang kinukuha].

Participant: Hindi naman lahat, kumbaga may iba rin syang tinuturo sa amin na wala sa libro.

Marie: Hindi naman dependent sa libro yung teacher nyong yun.

John: Malay nyo naman your teacher is expecting na nagreresearch kayo?

Participant: Malayo po talaga yung difference kasi ng tinuturo... Kapag magkaibang libro kasi minsa halimbawa nalang yung doon sa English, minsan sila nasa Mythology [na]... tapos kami yung topic namin parang ang layo na nila napagdaanan na nila... imbis na nandoon na rin sana kami, mas napapaano pa dahil magkaiba yung ginagamit na [libro].

Participant: Sa tingin ko, kung iset po muna natin yung libro, kung sa teaching abilities talaga, kung sakali magkakaparehas kami ng teachers sa isang... subject [tapos] lahat ng section pinapasukan nya... ibig sabihin parepareho kaming lahat. Bumalik po tayo kanina doon sa sinabi ko na may leveling. Syempre ang iisipin po ng teacher, pagnandito ako sa section 1, nakamindset na [ako na] ... napakabilis ng utak nila kahit mabilis ako [ma]aabsorb nila ito. ‘Pag pupunta naman ako sa section 24 o kaya sa lower sections, syempre kailangan magbigay ako ng allowance kasi alam ko na hindi nila mapipick up ito so papasok pa rin po yung sinasabing cognitive bias nga tawag sa mind eh, napakabias ng utak.

John: [I think] mali yung pinagsasasabi ng Psychology na sa kanila yun galing. Structure yun ng society, because of power... gawa yun ng lipunan, we should not accept it per se.

Marie: Ilang araw ba tumatagal sa inyo ang isang topic?

Participant: Depende.

Participant: ‘Pag hindi naintindihan ng karamihan, uulitin na sandamakmak na araw.

Marie: Eh ilang beses inuulit yung isang topic, two days? Sa inyo section 1, ilang beses inuulit yung isang topic?

Participant: 15 minutes [lang dinidiscuss].

Marie: Isang araw lang dinadaanan?

Participant: Pasada lang.

Marie: Pasada sa section 1, sa inyo?

Participant: Minsan inuulit [ng] two days ‘pag hindi natapos yung [topic].

Marie: Two days.

Participant: ‘Pag hindi natapos syempre.

John: ... karamihan ba ng mga academic orgs dominated ng higher section? O hindi naman? Academic orgs ha, halimbawa English club, Math club, Filipino club, Science club.

Participant: Nagpapaelect na rin naman po sila eh sa mga section

Participant: Kasi po president rin po ako ng isang club tapos... meroon pong 7 clubs... lima po doon nasa section 1 [yung pamunuan], tapos yung MAPEH nasa section 2, tapos nahawakan po kasi ng third year yung TLE kaya parang ano po, tapos yung mga posisyon din po, meroon din naman pong nasa [sections] 1, 2, 3, 4 na mga officers kaya nagkakatulungan din naman po.

John: Pero karamihan ng top positions, president, vice president, secretary?

Participant: ... sa club yun ng Math kasi daw... extracurricular daw kasi ‘pag officer [ka] kaya sa [section] 1 nalang daw ibigay.

Marie: [Sa] section 1 ibibigay kasi makaka[dagdag] sa extracurricular [points] nila, yung point system nga6...

John: Ewan ko ha, kasi sa mga higher section [sa amin dati] ...nangyari ito... May mga instances ba na halimbawa yung section 1 o yung section 2 bawal bigyan ng grade na mas mababa [kaysa] doon [ex. 80%]? Wala naman?

Participant: Sa amin kasi sa section 1 kung ano talaga yung dapat ibigay sa iyo, yun talaga [yung ibibigay] eh. Kunwari [deserve] mo yung 79, 79 talaga yung ibibigay sa iyo.

Marie: Section 1 yan?

Participant: Section 1.

Marie: Sa inyo, for examle section 1 lang yung pwedent magattain ng 89 pataas? Meroon?

Participant: Noong 3rd year po ako sa Math, nung nalaman ko po yung quiz ko, kalevel po ng sa section 1. [Kaso] yung grade ko mababa po sa binibigay nya. Ang reason daw po kasi, iba daw po kasi yung kumpitisyon sa mababang section sa kumpitisyon po sa mataas.

John: Ok.

Participant: Bakit naman po noong 1st year ako, last section 24 nakakuha po ako ng grade na 96. Kaya kung ano talaga yung kailangang grade na [ibigay sa iyo], yung naabot mo, yun talaga yung ibibigay sa iyo.

Marie: Depende sa teacher?

6 Used by public schools in determining the final rank of each honor student. It consists of points for the subjects taken by the student (academic) and points for his extracurricular involvements (contests joined, position in the student council, position in different academic and nonacademic organizations, position in the school’s newspaper staff, finished researches etc.).

Participants: (collective) Depende sa teacher.Marie: Sa inyo?

Participant: Ganoon din.

Marie: Kung ano yung deserve nyo?

Participant: Oo, kung lagpak ka eh di panindigan mo.

Participant: Oo nga ginawa mo yun eh.

John: So kahit nasa section 1 ka hindi ka sigurado na gagraduate ka 100%

Participant: (collective) Opo, depende kung nagaaral...

John: Ok, pagnagpaflag ceremony, puro section 1, kapag nagkakaroon ng school program pati rin yung naglelead ng program?

Participant: Hindi, yung mga clubs na po yung [bahala doon], sa [mga] officers na ng clubs.

Participant: Depende sa occassion.

John: Ok, class cultures, alam nyo ba yung konsepto ng kultura? Way of life. Hindi yun yung sinasabi ng mga grade 1 teachers natin na yung mga banga-banga, mga kung ano-anong painting ay kultura. [So example] may sariling kultura yung QCHS, may sariling kultura yung Batasan etc. so masasabi nyo ba na iba yung kultura ng nasa higher section kaysa sa lower section?

Participants: (collective) Yes.

John: O parehas lang?

Participant: Magkaiba, mas sunog yung kilay nila[ng mas higher] kaysa sa amin.

Participant: Magakiba po... unang-una po sa way ng pagpasok po sa classroom. Kasi nung tinitignan ko po yung mga nasa... last section... parang hindi po sila ganoon kaaware sa oras na tumatakbo. Yung pagpasok nila parang wala lang po sa kanila. Nakikita ko pa po sila na kumakain sa canteen...

Participant: Pero sinasabi po [sa’min] ng mga teacher na ‘wag mo silang gayahin, hindi ka nila katulad...

Marie: Sa inyo? For example time management [katulad ng] inexample na nila

Participant: Tama lang...

John: So, ngayong school year ninyo nagkaroon ng eleksyon? Ng SSG? Participant: Wala po. Appointed.

John: Ah, para sa next [school] year. Distribution naman ng material resources. ‘Pag nasa higher section ba...

Participants: (collective) Kumpleto.

Participant: Kumpleto ang libro.

John: Kumpleto ang libro? Bakit sa lower section ba hindi?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po, kulang.

Marie: Sa inyo?

Participant: Kulang yung Physics namin.

Marie: Kulang yung Physics, ano pa?

John: Anong section nyo?

Participants: (collective) Four.

Marie: Section 4 kayo kulang libro nyo?

Participant: Oo kulang libro namin sa Physics, meroon pa sa isang subject...

Participant: Values [ata].

Marie: Sa inyo section 1 kumpleto?

Participant: Kumpleto nga pero yung iba hindi naman po ginagamit kasi bumibili pa rin po kami ng libro eh.

Marie: Ay pinabibili kayo ng libro?

Participant: Workbook.

John: Ventilation? Electric fan?

Participants: (collective) sa PTA, kanya-kanyang contribution, depende sa napagusapan.

Marie: So ibig sabihin nagpapabili kayo [para rin] next year?

Participant: Paggagraduate ka naglalaho narin yung electric fan.

Marie: Naglalaho... raw yung binibili nilang electric fan.

John: Parang... elementary, ganyan yung practice sa elementary eh. Sa upuan?

Participants: (collective) Wala naman.

John: Ok naman. Naranasan nyo bang makakita ng bagong dating na upuan galing ng City Hall?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po.

John: Simula first year?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po, bagong pintura lang, bagong barnish.

John: Ah ok, yung kundisyon ba ng mga libro sa higher sections, bago ba o luma?

Participants: (collective) Parehas lang.

John: Ang notable doon [is] kumpleto lang?

Participants: (collective) Opo.

John: Pero hindi naman binabasa?

Participants: (collective) Hindi naman eh, sa workbook, puro workbook.

Participant: Yung bahay yung nagbabasa.

John: A ok. Sa tingin ninyo wala naman kayong nakikitang bias doon [sa treatment], between the higher section and the lower section? Sa distribution ng classrooms, ng facilities, location?

Participant: Parang meroon na ngayon kasi yung mga higher section, dyan na kami nakaano sa taas tapos pinaayos pa nila yan. Yung mga lower section ngayon nandoon na sila sa lumang building... yun na yung ginagamit nila.

Marie: Ano yun first four sections nandoon?

Participant: Kailangan po kasi kami dyan para malayo sa ingay [at] makapagconcentrate.

Marie: Sabi ng teacher nyo kailangan?

Participant: Pati principal po.

John: May ganoon?

Marie: Kailangan mas maayos yung room nyo? Participant: Oo para po [kami] ialis sa gulo.

John: ...ok, sa distribution ng teachers... tingin nyo ba yung mga teachers ninyo mas magagaling kaysa nasa mga lower sections?

Participants: (collective) Hindi po namin alam. Tama lang. Okey lang.

Participant: Parang meroon dati... may matandang teacher eh hindi na siya pinapadala sa higher section... parang hindi nya na siguro kaya, ewan ko lang.

Participant: May hawak din silang mababa.

Participant: Hindi, meroon ding sunod-sunod [ang hawak na section] eh, may teacher din na section 1 hanggang 4 [ang hinahawakan], may ganong teacher eh.

John: Ok, diba may mga electives kayo sa TLE?

Marie: Ano-ano ba yung mga electives nyo?

Participant: Sa section 1...

Marie: So may sectioning [din] and electives.

Participant: Kasi sa section 1 lang po yung may journalism... [yung] computer ba?

Marie: Section 2 at section 1, sharing ng electives?

Participants: (collective) Parehas lang, parehas sila.

John: Ano [ano] yung mga electives nila?

Participant: Filipino Journalism, English [journalism], at saka computer class.

Participant: Pero pagdating sa lower section, kung ano yung napunta sa inyo, yun na yun.

Marie: So ibig sabihin, sa lower section yung elective nyo kung ano lang yung matapatan nyo ayos lang?

Participants: (collective) Oo, kung ano yung vacant.

Marie: Yung mga lower section ba may karapatan na mamili... ng electives?

Participant: Wala silang pakialam.

Marie: Third section pwede ba kayong pumunta sa journalism?

Participant: Hindi.

Participants: (collective) Pwede!

Participant: Kung member ka na [noong] second year tapos hanggang ngayon member ka pa pwede ka nang mastock doon.

Marie: Eh sa computer?

Participant: Hindi po, tresspassers.

Marie: So ibigsabihin, yung computer pang section 1 lang?

Participants: (collective) Hindi naman.

Participant: Pwede naman pong gumamit kahit sino [basta may library card].

Marie: Yung elective mismo? Pang section 1 [lang]?

Participants: (collective) 1 & 2.

Participant: Last year, isa lang po yung teacher ng computer [hindi katulad] ngayon dalawa na kaya meroon narin pong [computer elective] sa lower section... tulad ng Faraday, section 11...

John: Pinaprioritize [pa rin] yung higher section? O hindi naman?

Participant: Hindi naman po kasi parehas pa rin po yung time namin. Hindi naman po nabawasan kahit dalawa na yung teacher.

John: Pero hindi naman lahat ng sections na 4th year pwede mamili, kumbaga meroon nang specified na [elective].

Participants: (collective) Yes.

Marie: Pero lahat kayo pwede magcomputer basta may letter?

Participants: (collective) Opo.

Marie: Kailangan pa talaga ng letter?

Participant: Hindi, pwede rin po ‘pag may library ID po.

John: ... so lahat ng kwento nyo iaassess natin yun... Tingin nyo ba yung pagtatrack, track ang tawag dyan eh o kaya homogenous student sectioning... [ay] nakakabuti o nakakasama sa estudyante?

Participant: Nakakabuting nakakasama.

John: Ok isa-isahin muna natin. ***

Marie: Sa’yo, nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakabuti po [kasi] nalalaman yung concern ng bawat section kung anong tingin nila sa section nyo, kung anong tingin nyo sa section nila... [nakakabuti iyon] syempre... kung negative yun mababago mo na yung tingin nila kasi nalalaman mo na na ganoon yung tingin nila sa iyo.

Participant: Nakakabuti rin po kasi... katulad po ng mga section 1, talagang karamihan po ng mga teachers talagang mas [makiling] po sila sa section 1 kasi talagang may tiwala po sila kasi marami na pong napagdaanan yung section 1 compared po sa ibang mga section...

Marie: Nakakabuti nakakasama?

Participant: Ganoon din po, nakakabuti, kasi katulad po ngayon sanay naman po kami na yung section 1 yung laging nasa ibabaw since 1st year pa po kami so ngayon mas lalo naming naintindihan kung bakit sila yung laging nasa itaas kasi katulad [ngayon]... napapaliwanag po nila kung bakit ganoon.

Participant: Ako po sa akin nakakabuti [kasi] kung lower section ka, pwede ka namang mag[sumikap] eh kung gusto mo namang mapunta sa higher section diba, kailangan mong galingan kasi yung section na iyon [section 1] yung magiging batayan kung kailangan mong magpursige para makamit mo kung ano yung gusto mo kung saan ka dapat nababagay, yun lang.

Participant: Nakakasama po kasi domino effect po iyon eh. Napabilang din po kasi ako sa section 4 noong 2nd year ako... noong 1st year po [kasi]... section 1 po ako... tapos, ang iniisip nila, bakit daw ako napunta sa section 4, kasi bobo daw ako. So unang-una maiisip ng mga kaklase ko syempre bobo ka, pangalawa pagdating mo sa bahay, anong section mo section 4 eh syempre bobo ka, pagdating mo sa kamag-anak mo, anong section mo, section 4 syempre bobo ka, sunod-sunod lang po.

Marie: Ikaw, nakakabuti nakakasama?

Participant: Both po, nakakabuti at nakakasama. Nakakabuti kasi ‘pag higher section ka lahat ng sipag na inalay mo maaani mo kasi nasa higher section ka. Tapos kapag lower section ka naman, yung nakakasama doon... [ay yung] iba na yung turing sa iyo, kunwari sasabihin nila ay bobo ‘to kasi ano to lower section, wala ‘tong gaanong alam tapos may mga teachers din naman kasi minsan na sasabihin nila ‘ay, hindi nalang ako magtuturo kasi hindi naman makikinig ‘tong mga ‘to.

Participant: Sa akin po nakakabuti dahil nalalaman po ng estudyante, halimbawa kung nasa last section ka..., na pwede pa po syang magsikap para po maabot yung pinakamataas at saka kung nasa lower section ka marerealize mo kugn ano pa yung pwede nyo pong gawin.

Participant: Sa akin po nakakabuti kasi magkakaroon ka ng dahilan para magstrive hard kasi syempre parang nakakaboring rin kung parepareho kayo, parang wala nang challenge, parang ganoon.

Marie: So kailangan ng stratification para magkaroon ng challenge?

Participant: Oo, sa tingin ko ganoon.

Marie: Sa iyo nakakabuti?

Participant: Hindi rin po kasi yung iba po parang pagsinalpak ng sinalpak sa utak nila na hanggang doon lang sila, hanggang doon nalang [din] po yung naaabot nila.

Marie: Sayo?

Participant: Nakakabuting nakakasama po. Nakakabuti kasi kapag nasa section 1 ka o nasa higher section ka nakakaimpluwensya po yung ginagawa ng mga kaklase mo. Kung masipag po sila, magsisipag ka, eh kapag nasa lower [section] makikita mo na yung mga kaklase mo tinatamad, syempre tatamarin ka rin po.

Marie: Parang nakadepende, sayo?

Participant: ...both kasi parang may good side na nakakatulong sya sa ano... kunyari sa section 1 sinasanay sila, siguro ano pang hinahasa din ganon, [on the] other side naman nakakasama [para sa mga nasa lower section] kasi yung iba yung tingin sa kanila...

Participant: Nakakabuti rin po kasi nalalaman po namin yung masamang epekto ng pagiging mataas ang section.

Participant: Ako nakakabuti rin kasi... nalelabel nila kung hanggang saan talaga yung kaya namin.

Marie: So payag ka sa labeling?

Participant: Depende rin kung maayos yung paglelable nila

Participant: Sa akin nakakabuti kasi kapag nasa higher section kasi syempre iisipin mo yung mga classmate mo magagaling kaya gagalingan mo rin kasi ayaw mong mapagiwanan. ‘Pag yung mga classmate mo naman mga tamad, syempre sabi nga nila ‘pag yung kamatis, isang bulok na kamatis na[ka]hawa sa ibang kamatis, syempre lahat mabubulok na.

John: Ok, may mga instances ba na... imbis na paparatingin sa guidance office yung nangyari, ireresolve nalang sa classroom para hindi lumabas?

Participants: (collective) Wala pa po.

Participant: Pero dapat daw yung mga higher section hindi napapaguidance.

John: Bakit? Pero wala pang instance na tinago yung issue? Wala?

Participants: (collective) Wala po.

John: Ok, thank you people, pasensya na kung yan lang nakayanan ko...

[End of the Focus Group Discussion for Higher Section Students. QCHS Pergola, 3:15 pm]

Transcription for Lower Section Students in a focused group discussion at Quezon City High School on February 26, 2010, 2:00 pm-2:50 pm. Participants were from Sections (18) Pythagoras and (20) Rutherford.

John: Itetape natin ha. Yung unang ground rule, lahat ng paguusapan dito hindi dapat makalabas [ngayon] kasi literal na konpidensyal, actually kapag may nakalabas tapos kagagawan ko, pwede nyo ako idemanda [-unplanned and untimely spill of information, without the consent of the respondents], pwede akong matangal sa trabaho nun. Pangalawa, syempre igagalang natin yung opinyon ng bawat isa kasi opinyon nya yun eh, naranasan nya yun, maski ako may mga naranasan din tungkol doon sa paguusapan natin. Konpidensyal sya kasi critical sa school, nangwengwestyon kasi sya... kaya nga ang daming teachers na ayaw ng topic ko eh.

Participant: Anong topic mo kuya?

John: Tungkol nga sa sectioning. Nangwengwestyon ako kung bakit may section 1, bakit may last section... Ok yung unang tanong natin [ay ito]: Ano ano yung mga ajectives na ginagamit ng teachers ninyo kapag dinidescribe nila yung section ninyo, o kaya kayo? Sino yung gustong magsalita?

Participant: Pwede kami muna? Ano, una kay Maam *** hindi namin nagustuhan kanina yung sinabi nya about sa lower section diba? Wala daw kayong mapapala sa lower section, bakit ano ba yung section nya ngayon diba? Yun lang.

John: Ok, sino pa yung gustong magsalita?

Participant: ‘Wag na po nasabi nya na po eh.

Participant: Saka meroon pa, bakit yung ibang section diba sa higher section yung tingin nila sa lower section ganoon nalang diba parang sobrang hina ng IQ diba?

John: Sino pa yung gustong magreact tungkol doon? Sigen na. Una muna yung mga adjectives na ginagamit ng teacher nyo kapag dinedescribe yung section nyo.

Participant: Mahina

Participant: Bobo day po kami, wala daw po kaming utak.

Participant: Tapos mga tanga daw, mga tanga daw po kami.

John: Ok, sino pa yung gustong magreact? Adjectives, kapag nacocompare kayo sa ibang section, ano yung sinasabi sa inyo?

Participant: Hinuhusgahan kami kaagad.

John: Paano kayo hinuhusgahan?

Participant: Parang ang hina [raw] ng IQ namin tapos hindi nila pinapagawa kung ano yung pinapagawa [sa] ibang section na mas mataas kasi alam nila hindi namin kaya.

John: Sino pa? Actually people sabihin nyo na yung gusto nyong sabihin kasi gagraduate na kayo. Sa toto lang, yung mangyayari dito gagamitin yun ng school ninyo, ng principal, para baguhin yung sistema [dito].

Participant: Kaya ganyan ba yung iniinterview mo?

John: Yeah!

Participant: Ah malalaman ba ng principal?

Marie: Yung pangalang nyo hindi.

John: Pero ‘pag nsa paper ko na talaga, doon sa research ko, walang pangalan doong nakalagay, puro mga dash-dash-dash lang yun ng mga nagsab na estudyante, pero wala yung pangalan nyo. Yun lang ba yung mga labels na [itinatag] sa inyo, kapag nagcocompete kayo?

Participant: At saka po yung nananakit.

John: Nang ano?

Participant: Tulad ng nanghahampas... yung parang maiba lang ng tanong mo tapos lagi nyang bibigyan ng malisya tapos yun nanghahampas na, nagmumura, lahat.

John: Talaga?

Participant: Yes, pagbadtrip na badtrip na.

Participant: Ang hindi lang nya ginagawa nambabato. Ay, minsan nambabato sya ng eraser.

John: Talaga?

Participant: Oo, minsan nabato nya na si ***, nahampas nya na rin ako, nasutok na ako, nakurot eh...

John: Lahat ba sila?

Participant: Hindi naman po, sya lang po nagiisa kasi ewan matandang dalaga daw, yun lang masasabi ko.

John: Baka concern lang sya sa inyo kasi advisory na kayo?

Participant: Hindi po, AP teacher po namin sya.

John: Ah, iba na teacher. Sina pa... gustong magreact? Wala na? So totoo na nalelabel kayo ng negative ba o positive sa inyo yung dating?

Participants: (collective) Negative.

Participant: Negative, positive.

John: Tingin nyo bakit kayo nalelabel ng ganon? Bakit kayo natatawag na ganoon, tingin nyo?

Participant: Kasi po... dependent rin naman sa mga estudyante minsan abuso na rin yung ibang estudyante, masyado naring makulit, ganoon, hindi narin nakikinig sa mga teacher...

Participant: Siguro nasa lower section kami kaya kami ginaganon.

John: Ok, bakit ang daming sinasabi sa inyo, na maski yung ibang estudyante [ay may sinasabi rin]? Yung mga naririnig nyo sa kanila?

Participant: Para po sa akin... ginagawa nila yun para mahubog yung kakayahan po namin at saka hindi naman po nila minimean yung ginagawa nila pero yung iba masasakit talaga, yun lang masasabi ko.

John: ...Diba nalelabel na kayo ng kung ano-ano man, galing sa teachers, etc. etc. ‘San pa ba nakakarating yun? Nalelabel din ba kayo ng mga parent nyo?

Participant: Oo, nilelabel kami.

Marie: Kagaya ng ano?

Participant: Kinocompare ako sa pinsan ko.

Participant: ... kasi po... sa panahon ngayon hindi na po nila alam yung mga sitwasyon na nangyayari kaya lagi nilang hinuhusgahan kaagad na kesyo mabubuntis ka kaagad, magaasawa ka kaagad, hindi muna nila tinitignan kung ano yung dapat na tignan po nila kung ganoon ba yung pananaw nung para sa amin, ganoon ba yung pananaw namin na kahit ginagawa na namin lahat, yun pa rin yung hinuhusga sa’min...

John: Sa tingin nyo ba nakakaapekto yung mga labels na yun doon sa konsepto nyo [ng inyong mga] sarili? Hindi naman?

Participants: (collective) Hindi naman.

John: [So] ok lang?

Participants: (collective) Ok lang.

John: Ano yun, halimbawa, pasok dito labas dito?

Participants: (collective) Oo, pero may iba na nakakaapekto [rin sa self concept namin].

Marie: O ang ginawa nyo tinanggap nyo nalang at hindi kayo nagreact?

Participant: Hindi, siguro yung iba tinanggap namin kasi alam naman namin na tama rin yung sinabi nila.

Marie: Kagaya ng anon yung mga tinangap mo sa sarili mo?

Participant: Siguro yung pagiging pasaway, yun lang.

Participant: Syempre nakakaapekto [sa self concept] yung iba, yung iba hindi.

Marie: Kagaya ng ano yung nakakaapekto?

Participant: Kunwari sabihan nila kami ng bobo, syempre para sa amin masakit yun, per minsa... hindi nalang namin dinaramdam kasi paulit-ulit na, alam naman namin sa sarili namin na kahit nandoon lang kami sa section na iyon may kaya kaming patunayan...

John: Nasasali ba kayo sa mga competition?

Participant: (collective) Syempre.

John: ...dumating ba sa punto na nanalo kayo?

Participant: Hindi kasi mga higher section [lang] yung nananalo.

Marie: Pa’no mo nasabi?

Participant: Syempre naman yung mga iba namang teacher hindi naman papayag na matalo yung higher section.

Marie: Teacher? Bakit [sila] ba ang batayan ng pagkapanalo?

Participant: Hindi nga kasi po ganito... syempre [for] example... section 1... pa’no ‘pag natalo sila? Syempre [anong] iisipin ng ibang teacher diba? Tapos natalo pa sila ng lower section, syempre masasaktan naman yung teacher nila diba?

Participant: [Hindi,] nasa estudyante pa rin nakasalalay yun kung anong mangyayari.

Participant: Hindi rin! Grabe.

Marie: Pa’no nyo nasabing hindi rin?

Participant: Nagtataka nga sila ‘pag... mas nakalamang yung last section, sabihin...

Participant: Wala naman silang [teacher] magagawa kung sila [higher section] yung nanalo eh.

Participant: ‘Wag ka na maingay! May magagawa sila, pwede sila mandaya diba?

Marie: So naniniwala kang pwede mandaya yung mga teacher para manalo yung higher section?

Participant: Oo.

Participant: Oo naman.

Participant: Parang sinisiraan nyo na yung mga teacher dito sa KASO [QCHS]?

Participant: Hindi naman.

Participant: Oo sinisiraan ko talaga, sobra-sobrang sinisiraan ko sila.

John: Ok, pero may mga instances ba na sa tingin ninyo... yung performance nyo mas maganda [kaysa] sa nanalo?

Participant: Yung [sa] Science namin.

Marie: Anong nangyari sa ano ninyo?

Participant: Tiga [ano] ata yung nanalo eh

Participant: Hindi ah.

Participant: Hindi, talo talaga tayo noon.

Participant: 2nd [place] tayo dapat noon [eh].

Participant: Talo talaga, kulang yung effort eh.

Participant: Nandoon ka ba? Wala ka naman doon eh.

Participant: Wala ka naman pala doon eh, bakit ka nagrereact?

John: ...nth question... yung mga labels ba sa inyo nakakaapekto ba sa aspiration ninyo sa buhay? Pangarap ninyo... example, dahil sa nalelabel ako na ganyan, kailangan ganito lang yung papangarapin ko...

Participants: (collective) Hindi.

John: ...pa’no nakakaapekto yung paglelabel sa inyo na lower section kayo o kaya mga ‘bobo’ kayo, [gaya ng] sinasabi nila,... sa relasyon ninyo sa kapwa ninyo estudyante na hindi kabilang sa section ninyo... example... doon sa [mga estudyante] na mas mataas [ang section].

Participants: (collective) Nahihiya.

Participant: Parang nahihiyang lumapit.

Participant: Nakakahiyang makihalobilo.

Marie: Bakit ka nahihiya?

Participant: ...syempre higher [section students] sila.

Participant: Lahat naman ng tao pantay-pantay diba?

Participant: Eh pa’no kung sabihan ka ng ganon?

Participant: [Tu]mayo ka nga kung pantay tayo.

Participant: Yung utak daw nila tulad [ng] kay Jimmy Neutron.

Participant: Sobrang talino.

John: Ano ba, yung tipong hindi na pwedeng hipuin?

Participant: Parang ganoon.

Participant: Hindi naman.

Participant: Nakakahiya lang kasi sila... maganda yung sinasabi sa kanila, eh tapos ‘pag nalaman nilang ganoon kami tinatrato... [na pinagsasalitaan ng] mga words na sinasabi namin, [na] parang gagawin [naman] namin [yung mga yun], [syempre] mahihiya kami. Kahit ngayon nahihiya kami kasi yung iba kaklase namin nang 1st year [tapos ngayon] nasa higher section na, parang nakakahiya ring makihalubilo.

John: Ikaw naman.

Participant: ...nakakaiya kasi... parang ang baba ng tingin sa amin.

Marie: Pa’no mo nasabing mababa ang tingin nila sa’yo?

Participant: Hindi, kasi yun na yung nakikita ko kasi nasa lower section ako parang...

Marie: Ano yung mga palatandaan na sinasabi nila na mababa ka daw?

Participant: Wala... sa asar lang pero... basta.

Participant: Yung hindi po kasi nakikihalubilo [sa amin kaya...

Marie: Sinong hindi nakikihalubilo, sila o kayo?

Participant: Sila po, syempre kami naman... always open, sila lang [ang ayaw]. Para kaming... duming ayaw dikitan.

Marie: Dumating ba yung instance na kayo yung nakihalubilo pero hindi nila kayo inimik?

Participant: Meron.

Marie: Ano yung mga times na yon, pakidescribe.

Participant: [Sa] Science camp... at saka yung mga competition.

Marie: Hindi nila kayo iniimik?

Participant: Hindi po.

Marie: Pero gumawa [ba] kayo ng way para imikin nila kayo?

Participant: Oo, noong Science camp nga po, sumali kami sa games pero... kunwari kaming dalawa [yung galing sa higher section], kaming dala lang [yung] naguusap, ok sasali ka pero hindi ka nila ieentertain.

John: Ok, wala nang gustong magreact tungkol doon? May mga kaibigan ba kayong higher sections?

Participants; (collective) Meron.

John: ...hindi naman kayo ilang sa [kanila].

Participants: (collective) Hindi.

Participant: Lalo pa nga pong nagiging close [kami] kasi minsan nagpapatulong sila sa assignment, sa projects...

John: ...hindi ko magets, may kaibigan kayo na higher section [pero] hindi kayo naiilang sa [kanila]. Pero sa iba?

Participants: (collective) Oo.

Participant: Oo kasi friend mo sya, magkakilala na kayo... nagkapalagayan na [kasi] kayo ng loob eh. Yung iba, hindi mo pa naman kakilala diba?

Marie: So pili lang?

Participants: (collective) Oo pili.

John: Yung relasyon nyo naman sa teacher nyo?

Participant: ...kunwari nagtutulong-tulong para sumipsip para nalang madagdagan yung grade...

Marie: Ang trato ba sa inyo ng teacher nyo ay iba sa higher section kaysa sa lower section?

Participants: (collective) Yes.

Marie: Sa papanong paraan?

Participant: Sa pagpapagawa ng project at assignment.

Marie: Bakit mas mahirap ba sa kanila kaysa sa inyo?

Particpant: Oo, like sa English.

Participant: Wala, hindi rin noh!

Participant: Halimbawa sasabihin ‘wag... nyo na gawin ito, mahihirapan lang kayo eh, yung mga matataas na section [nga] nahihirapan, [kayo] pa kaya.

Participant: Sasakit lang daw yung ulo nila sa amin ‘pag pinagawa nila sa amin yun.

John: Sino pa?

Marie: Gaano tumatagal sa inyo ang isang topic?

Participant: One day.

Marie: One day lang.

Participant: Two days, depende sa ano...

Participant: ...minsan 2 days kasi po puro sermon, puros panghuhusga...

Participant: Oo, sermon kuna bago yung topic namin.

Marie: Sa mga quizzes, may naiiba ba?

Participant: ...sa periodical [test], [sa] iba po yung binibigay nila 60 [items], ‘pag samin 50 lang. Ganon kasi yung sa TLE po namin... kaya naman naming gawin [yun eh] kung pagaaralan namin.

John: Pero sa ibang subjects, wala naman? Ok naman?

Participant: Yung [komento] lang namin sa mga teachers [ay] yung may mga nananakit...

Marie: Nananakit?

Participant: [May mga] teachers kami na kapag ... naiinis sya sa amin, nananakit sya.

Marie: Anong paraan ng pananakit?

Participant: [Na]nanapak sya, tapos namamalo, tapos nambabato ng eraser, nangungurot.

Participant: Tapos nagmumura, diba bawal yun?

Marie: So iba yung way of teaching sa inyo [kaysa] sa higher section? Sa tingin nyo?

Participant: Parang ganoon na nga.

John: Diba may ST [student teacher] kayo?

Participant: Sa ibang subject.

John: Paano naman yung relasyon nyo sa kanya?

Participant: Ok naman po, yung iba lang [na] mga kapwa po namin na estudyante... hindi po nakikisama, parang ‘ST ka lang... hindi ka namin dapat galangin kasi... kalevel ka lang namin... pero wala naman sa ST yun eh, sa paguugali lang namin kasi maganda naman yung pakikitungo ng [student] teacher sa amin.

Participant: Pero may mga ibang ST kasi na may mga favoritism sila lalo na sa higher section.

John: Ah, may ibang ST ba na humahawak ng higher section?

Participant: Oo meron.

John: Pa’no ‘pag ganoon? May mga teachers kayo na humahawak ng higher sections... [so] napagkocompare kayo, madalas [ba] o hindi naman?

Participant: Oo.

Participant: Kaya nga po...

John: Minsan lang naman?

Participant: Minsan tapos sinasabi nila na ‘kaya ayaw ko humawak ng ganitaong section kasi puros bobo... Sakit sa ulo, ang daming kaso... Pinupush nila kami na gawin kung ano yung hinuhusga nila sa amin.

John: Yung hinuhusga sa inyo, tingin nyo ba tama?

Participant: Hindi.

Participant: Minsan.

Participant: Yung iba tama, yung iba hindi.

Participant: Hindi... hindi lang nila naaapreciate yung ginagawa namin pero para sa amin parang tinutodo na namin kung ano yung kaya namin.

Participant: Hindi lang talaga nila naaapreciate.

John: Sino pa yung gustong magreact tungkol doon?

Participant: Hndi rin, kasi minsa yung mga estudyante rin naman yung nagpupush sa mga teacher para sabihin [at] gawin sa kanila yun eh, kaya nakadepende rin talaga sa mga estudyante kung ano yung magiging disisyon ng mga teachers.

John: Sino pa’ng gustong magreact? Wala na? Sa admin? Close ba kayo sa SSG? Wala? Ok lang? Sa mga teachers?

Participant: Meroon, [close kami sa] teacher namin sa Math, si Sir ***

John: Lahat o pili?

Participants: (collective) Pili.

John: Paano kayo namimili?

Participant: Batay po sa ginagawa nilang pagtrato sa amin... at saka... [pagnagtu]turo sya nakakainspire at saka matotodo ka talag[ang] magaral.

Participant: ...kung sino lang din yung kaya kang pakisamahan... kasi yung ibang teacher... plastic eh, kaya namamlastic din ako.

John: ... sa ibang student orgs, meroon bang member sa inyo ng kahit anong student org?

Participants: (collective) Wala.

Marie: Wala sa inyong sumasali sa mga orgs? Bakit ayaw nyo sumali sa mga orgs?

Participant: Hindi naman kami naiinform doon diba?

Marie: So tingin nyo kulang sa information [dissemination]?

Participant: Hindi namin alam yung tungkol doon.

Participant: Naiinform! Kaso nahihiya kami sumali.

John: Bakit kayo nahihiya?

Participant:Mababang uri daw [kasi kami].

Participant: ... baka mapahiya lang kami.

Participant: Hindi kami naeentertain na mabuti na sumali kayo dyan.

Marie: Sa inyo, bakit hindi kayo sumasali sa mga org?

Participant: Hindi naman kami pinapasali eh.

Marie: In what way na hindi kayo pinapasali?

Participant: Hindi sinasabi sa amin yung mga ano...

Marie: Sa tingin ninyo hindi kayo naiinform?

Participant: Hindi.

Participant: Hindi, nainform [kami] pero hindi nia kami inuobligang sumali.

Participant: Oo... pili lang yung inuobligang sumali, yung mga [nasa] matataas na section.

Participant: Sinasabi lang nila sa amin pero parang wala silang balak na isali talaga kami.

John: ... access to prestige. Yung prestige, [yun] yung pagiging sikat... tingin ninyo saan sikat yung klase nyo?

Participants: (collective) Kalokohan, katarantaduhan, kaguluhan.

Participant: Kami daw po yung may pinaka magandang asal sa buong 4th year.

John: May mga naguidance na ba sa inyo?

Participants: (collective) Meron.

Participant: Mga ibang kaklase namin nahuling nagyoyosi.

John: Yung mas malala pa doon na krimen?

Participant: kami buong klase [naguidance].

Marie: Bakit buong klase?

Participant: Naglagay po ng bubble gum at saka ng tinta ng ballpen...

John: May napagbintangan na magnanakaw?

Participant: Oo, yung ano... girl pinagbintangan tayong magnanakaw dahils sa USB diba?

Participant: Oo, pero... [nakita] nila sa circle.

Participant: Sa lab nawala tapos sa circle nakuha para namang... kasi time namin yon nang nawala yun.

John: Diba may mga electives kayo sa TLE? Lahat ba ng electives na iyon pwede kayong mamili? Ano ba yung mga electives nyo rito? May computer, may journalism...

Participant: Home nursing, culinary.

John: Kayo ba yung pumili noon?

Participants: (collective) Hindi.

Participant: Dependent sa teacher na nagtuturo sa amin.

Participant: Hindi, depende sa section.

Marie: Depende sa section?

Participant: Depende sa section.

John: Anong elective nyo?

Participant: Culinary lahat [sa section namin].

Marie: Sino pumili noon?

Participant: Ang alam ko po kasi by section po iyon eh.

Marie: Binaby-section nila, wala kayong karapatang mamili?

Participant: Bawat grading iba-iba depende sa teacher kung anong ibibigay.

Participant: 1st – 3rd year culinary tayo eh.

Participant: 1st – 3rdyear culinary kami tapos agriculture kami ngayon.

Participant: Sa amin home nursing lang kuya.

Participant: 1st to 4th [grading] home nursing lang po talaga.

Participant: Depende po sa teacher namin kung ano pong section ang gusto nilang turuan...

John: Depende sa teacher?

Participant: Kasi po ano, kunwari ako teacher, kunwari ganito yung tuturuan ko Pythagoras at saka Rutherford, Roentgen... yun lang po yung aanuhin namin, hindi na po kami pwedeng ‘ay doon ako sa computer, gusto ko sa ano, hindi kami pwedeng mamili. Kung ano po yung napili ng teacher doon kami.

Marie: May times ba na gusto ninyo mamili pero hindi kayo pinayagan?

Participant: Meroon po.

Participant: ...gusto po namin pero hindi [na] po namin sila kwenestyon kasi...

Marie: Bakit hindi nyo kwenestyon?

Participant: ... natatakot... lang kami.

Participant: Alam naman po namin na hindi mangyayari kung ano yung gusto namin.

Marie: Hindi kayo nagsign ng petition?

Participant: Hindi po.

John: Kapag may mga academic contests, sino yung pinapadala?

Participants: (collective) Higher section.

John: Walang kinukuha sa inyo?

Participants: (collective) Wala po.

John: ...kapag meroong nonacademic contests? Example kapag contest sa pagluluto?

Participant: Hindi po, [section] 1 pa rin.

Marie: Section 1 parin kinukuha?

Participant: One or two.

John: Contest ng pagkukumpuni ng sasakyan?

Participant: Eh di sila pa rin.

Marie: Kahit hindi nila electives sila kinukuha?

Participant: Opo.

Participant: Oo, lahat naman.

Participant: Kung [sa field] ...po namin dapat po maexperience [din] namin. Kaya po namin nasabing hindi kasi hindi naman namin naexperience diba?

Marie: Sa inyo, may nilalaban ba? Wala?

Participant: Wala po...

John: Wait lang... kasi kahapon ang ininterview ko naman [ay] mga higher sections, totoo ba yung tsismis na hindi nagbotohan dito ng SSG? Yung sumulpot nalang sila sa mundo, hindi sila nagpapaeleksyon kung sino magiging presidente, vice-president?

Participants: (collective) Wala.

Participant: Meroon noon.

Marie: So hindi ninyo tiyak kung meroon o wala?

John: Nakaranas ba kayo bumoto?

Participants: (collective) Hindi.

John: Simula 1st year?

Participant: Bumoto tayo? Hindi naman tayo bumoto eh.

Participant: Sa Math club meroon.

Marie: Hindi, yung... [botohan sa] Student Council...

Participant: Meron, meron.

John: May botohan.

Participant: Lahat lang ng mga president at saka vice president yung pinatawag, by section pinatawag kasi magvovote nga daw ng...

Marie: Representative lang pinatawag?

Participant: Oo, representative.

John: Hindi, yung buong [studentry]?

Participants: (collective) Hindi, hindi buong section.

John: Totoo ba... na kapag nagpaflag ceremony kayo, section 1 lang ang pinag[oorganize] sa harapan?

Participants: (collective) Oo, totoo po yun.

Participant: 100% totoo talaga.

Marie: Pero tingin nyo kung kayo maghohost ng flag ceremony kaya nyo?

Participants: (collective) Oo naman.

Participant: Matutuwa silang lahat sa gagawin namin.

John: ... kapag may mga school program, sino yung namumuno?

Participants: (collective) Higher parin.

John: ...kapag may mga program, di malamang lahat ng estudyante nandoon, sino yung nasa harapan?

Participants: (collective) Section 1.

John: Talaga bang ganoon ang trend dito?

Participants: (collective) Oo.

John: Eh nasaan kayo?

Participants: (collective) Sa likod.

Participant: Ano ka ba diba nasa dulo nga tayo diba?

Marie: Ibigsabihin laging nasa unahang yung section 1?

Participant: Oo, kahit ‘wag na yung section 1, yung higher section nalang... higher section nalang laging nasa unahan, lahat ng lower nasa likod.

Marie: Tapos kayo nasa dulo?

Participant: Oo ganon.

Marie: May times ba na may mga occassion na sila lang umaattend kayo hindi?

Participant: (collective) Meroon.

Marie: Kagaya ng anong mga occassion?

John: Halimbawa kapag... bibisita rito yung DepEd?

Participant: Opo, sila po yung... nakikihalubilo.

John: Ok, class cultures. Yung ibig sabihn ng kultura ay... yung way ng pamumuhay. Bawat lugar may way ng pamumuhay diba? Ibigsabihin bawat lugar may kultura. Masasabi nyo ba na iba yung kultura ng nasa higher section kaysa nasa lower section? O hindi?

Participant: Parehas lang.

Marie: Paano mo nasabing parehas lang?

Participant: Syempre we are both students and dito kami nagaaral sa KASO

Marie: Ano bang kultural nila na kagaya ng sa iyo?

Participant: Sumusunod din sila sa mga lumang tradisyon ng mga Pilipino tulad ng binyag, kasal... pamamanhikan.

John: Ok sa iba naman... sino pa yung gustong magsalita? Iba ba yung kultural ng nasa higher section kaysa sa lower section? Tignin nyo ba iba yung klase ng pamumuhay nila doon kaysa sa inyo?

Participant: Opo [iba po], kasi po yung iba doon kampante na na gagraduate sila kahit wala na silang gawin kasi mataas naman yung section nila... Tapos kami talaga yung pinopokus ng mga teacher na ‘gawin nyo yung ganito kasi para makagraduate kayo, parang ang gusto nilang sabihin sa amin [ay] ipush namin yung sarili namin para makagraduate...

John: Pinapahawak ba kayo ng leadership role sa mga orgs? Ay hindi pala kayo pinanasali... Ibigsabihin ng power, yun yung [kakayahan] na magpasunod ng tao, tingin nyo ba yung section ninyo may aura ng power?

Participant: Wala.

John: Parang ganito yung nakikita ko, hindi kayo takot sa kanila [higher section students] parang ilang lang kayo kasi hindi nyo sila kaclose parang ganon.

Participant: Oo ganoon lang.

John: Kasi may something sa kanila na parang iba sa inyo... pero hindi naman sobra-sobra. Ok, access to material resources. Ang report sa akin kahapon, sa section 1 daw kumpleto ng libro, sa inyo?

Participants: (collective) Apat lang.

Participant: Apat lang kulang-kulang.

John: Totoo?

Participant: Yes.

Participant: Apat lang yung pinahiram sa aming text books.

John: Apat?

Participant: Hindi, kumpleto kami kaso yung estudyante ayaw kumuha ng libro... kasi hindi naman ginagamit.

Participant: Oo kasi hindi naman daw ginagamit yung libro.

Marie: Ibig sabihin yung ibang estudyante ang aya kumuha?

John: Ibig sabihin tinatanong kayo ng teachers?

Participant: Yes.

Participant: ...tinanong po kasi kami ng adviser namin kung ilan yung libro na kukunin namin.

Participant: Apat libro mo?

Participant: Dalawa nga lang sa amin eh.

Marie: Paano naging dalawa yung libro mo?

Participant: Kasi pina[tanong] kung ginagamit ba yung ibang libro o hindi, eh hindi naman namin ginagamit.

Participant: Kasi meron naman po kaming mga... workbook. Saka hindi na po kailangan ng mga libro.

Participant: Hindi po kami binibigyan ng sapat na libro kasi alam naman nila na isasawalang bahala lang namin yung libro at saka wala kaming kakayahan na basahin iyon araw-araw.

Marie: Wala kayong kakayahan?

Participant: Na basahin ng buo at ska intindihin naming mabuti.

Marie: Pero pinapili kayo kung kukunin nyo yung kumpletong libro.

Participant: Hindi po kasi sa amin ano eh... [sinabi sa amin ng teacher namin na] Hoy apat-apat lang ha... kasi nasa ibang section na yung mga kumpletong... [set ng libro].

Participant: At saka obligasyon talaga ng estudyante [na] bumili ng workbook.

Participant: Pwede ka namang hindi bumili ng workbook, eh di magsulat ka diba? Ganun lang.

John: Ok naman yung mga electricfans nyo sa classroom?

Participants: (collective) Wala po kaming electricfan.

Participant: Puro sira.

John: Sabi nila ang nagpoprovide daw PTA

Participant: Wala namang PTA ngayon diba?

John: Yung mga magulang nyo hindi kinausap?

Participant: Nagkaroon ng meeting, kahit ano namang pagkasunduan doon ang tanong ba is susundin ba ng mga estudyante? Karaniwan kasi sa estudyante diba hindi naman nagaambag diba pambili ng electric fan diba?

Participant: Sinisira pa po yung electricfan.

John: ...sa itsura ng mga upuan nyo, ok naman?

Participant: Ok lang, walang desk yung iba.

Participant: Wala kang armchair.

Marie: Walang armchair? Pero tingin mo yung sa section 1 puro may archair yung ano nila.

Participant: Meroon, mero kasi dumadaan [din]kami doon eh.

Participant: Oo, kasi hiwa-hiwalay yung upuan nila, sa amin ano eh.

Participant: Dikit-dikit.

John: ...e diba hiwa-hiwalay naman yung upuan nyo?

Participant: Hindi. Dikit-dikit, nakabakal.

Participant: May bakal sa ilalim.

John: eh paano ‘pag nagwawalis?

Participant: Mabigat, hihilain.

Marie: Tingin nyo bakit may bakal yung ilalim... [ng] upuan nyo?

Participant: Para hindi matakbo?

Participant: Para hindi na namin kayang iano, magugulo daw kami... at saka ang pangit po ng building namin kasi para kaming preso.

Participant: Maximum force.

John: Ah yun yung sinasabi ni Mam Jimenez [4th year level chair] na maraming rehas rehas... tingin nyo bakit may ganoon?

Participant: Para hindi makatakas yung mga estudyante.

John: Diba namimili kayo ng mga teachers na papakisamahan ninyo? Ano yun, parang magrerely lang kayo sa first impression? Kumbaga ‘pag nakikita ninyo na ok itong teacher na ito papakisamahan ninyo?

Participants: (collective) Hindi.

Participant: Sa ugali.

Participant: Kung mabait, kung masama, saka yung pakikitungo nya sa mga estudyante.

Marie: Eh pano ‘pag mahigpit pero natututo kayo?

Participants: (collective) Ok lang.

Participant: Nakakainspire.

John: Yung pinakalast nating question, tingin nyo ba yung klase ng pagsesection ng estudyante based sa grades yun diba? Nakakabuti ba o nakakasama?

Participant: Ano nakakasama din kasi parang kaya ganyan yung nakuha mong grade kasi hindi ka nagaaral ng mabuti...

Marie: Pero dumating ba yung time na ginive mo yung best mo pero yung na[kuha] mong grade mas mababa [sa ineexpect mo]?

Participant: Opo, ginawa ko naman lahat eh kaso wala talaga, hindi ko talaga kaya...

Marie: Kayo? Nakakabuti nakakasama?

Participant: ...nakakasama.

Marie: In what way?

Participant: ... kasi yung pagsesection dito hindi porket nandoon ka, wala kang isip. Kasi... kunwari section Pascal, 82 ...yung [grade na requirement sa] ...sectioning nila... pag napuno na [yung mga slots ng section na yun], sa [kabilang] section [Pythagoras] na [mapupunta yung estudyante]. Nakakasama kasi yung dapat na hindi namin mapapahaluan na section, mapupunta kami doon.

Marie: Pero dumating ba yung times na for example nagsabi sila na dahil ganito yung section nyo, bawal kayong magattain ng 90 plus?

Participant: Hindi naman.

Marie: Ikaw, nakakabuti ba nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakasama kasi...

Marie: Hindi, tingin mo ba yung sectioning nakakadegrade ng pagkatao?

Participant: Oo, nakakaano rin kasi... parang nadadown namin yung sarili namin.

Marie: Sa papanong pamamaraan?

Participant: Kasi... yung pinaghirapan mo parang wala lang. Marie: Dumating ba sa’yo na nageffort ka ng too much pero yung grade na nakuha mo mas

mababa?

Participant: Oo, dumating narin.

Marie: Pero tingin mo kaya mo naman ba pag ikaw nilagay sa section 1 o sa higher section?

Participant: Pwede, may isasabay ako.

Marie: Sa iyo, nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakasama po.

Marie: In what way?

Participant: Kasi po yung pagsesection po nila hindi tama kasi kunwari magulo ka tapos kung sino yung kasamahan mong magugulo dun ka ilalagay.

Marie: Hindi ba batay sa grades?

Participant: Yung iba batay [sa grades], yung iba kung magulo ka tapos ganoon yung ugali mo doon ka nila ilalagay.

Marie: So tingin mo nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakasama at saka... yung parang dapat meroong isa o tatlo na matalino para maencourage kaming lahat e kung puros magugulo naman po eh di lahat ng gawain nila gagawin nalang din namin, makikisabay nalang din kami sa kung ano yung ginagawa nila.

Marie: Sa’yo nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakasama kasi... parang hindi nila kami binibigyan ng pagkakataon na makasama yung... mga estudyante na nasa higher section.

Participant: Wala naman kasi sa section eh, kung aanuhin nga lang ano eh... kasi kung [yung] mga nakakasama mo is marurunong, syempre mafoforce ka rin na magaral at saka magiging inspired ka din kasi ganito yung mga kaklase mo...

Marie: Nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Pwedeng slight kasi pagnakasama namin yung ibang section, at least machachallenge kami sa kakayahan nila, at least pagnachallenge kami magagawa din namin yung gagawin nila. Tapos, parang hindi nakakabuti kasi parang madadown to earth ka ‘pag kunwari nakasagot sila tapos ikaw hindi.

Marie: Hini ka ba nachachallenge sa mga kaklase mo ngayon?

Participant: Ngayon? Siguro nachachallenge lang ako sa utak nya, hindi sa iba kong classmate...

Marie: So kailangan mong mainspire. Ikaw nakakabuti o nakakasama ang sectioning?

Participant: Nakakasama syempre ‘pag... pasukan palang kunwari tinanong na yung section mo tapos ‘pag nalaman nila yung section mo, [sasabihin] ‘ay ang baba, ang bobo mo kasi...

Marie: So may label na kaagad?

Participant: Meroon na kaagad.

Marie: Ano pa ba yung ibang aspeto na tingin mo nakakasama dahil sa section mo?

Participant: ...wala na naman.

Marie: Pero tingin mo ‘pag nasama ka naman sa higher section kaya mo?

Participant: Oo naman syempre kakayanin ko alangan namang... porket galing ako sa lowest [section]...

Marie: Hindi ka ba nachachallenge sa mga kaklase mo ngayon?

Participant: Hindi... kasi pareparehas lang kami.

Marie: Ikaw, nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Nakakasama... kasi kinocompare ako eh lalo na sa mga pinsan ko... Yun nga kunwari may magtatanong sa’yo parang nakakahiyang sagutin kasi nga lowest section ka.

Marie: Dumating ba yung time na nageffort ka tapos yung nakuha mong grade mababa?

Participant: Medyo.

Marie: Pero tingin mo kaya mo pagpumunta ka sa highersection?

Participant: Hindi... joke lan g, kakayanin ko yun, syempre kakumpitensya ko mga higher section.

Marie: Eh bakit hindi ka ba nakakakita ng kumpetisyon dito sa section mo ngayon?

Participant: Hindi.

Marie: ...ikaw, tingin mo nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: For me, hindi [nakakasama], basta all I want is makagraduate yun lang.

Marie: Sapat na sa iyo ang graduation?

Participant: Syempre... at saka kung maayos yung grade ko.

Marie: Sapat na sayo kung anong section ka?

Participant: Wala... na akong magagawa, doon kao nilagay noong nagpaenroll ako eh.

Marie: Hindi ba nakakaapekto yung label sa section mo sa performance mo?

Participant: Hindi, bak nga mas mataas pa yung mga grade ko kay sa mga higher section eh.

Marie: So sa iyo hindi nakakaapekto. Pero bakit tingin mo napunta ka sa section mo ngayon?

Participant: Huli siguro akong nagpaenroll...

Marie: Iwa, nakakabuti o nakakasama?

Participant: Ok lang kasi kung ano yung naano kong grado ok lang naman.

Marie: Grado, so may tiawala kang grado. May tiwala ka ba sa gradong binbigay nila sa’yo eh yun talaga yung deserve mo?

Participant: Oo, eh yun lang po kakayahan ko.

Marie: Pero dumating ba sa oras na nagbigay ka ng too much effort pero yung nakuha mong grade hindi ganoon kataas?

Participant: Ganoon po minsan.

Marie: Pero tingin mo ayos lang, depende parin sa performance ng estudyante?

Participant: Opo.

John: Ok, wala nang iba pang saloobin tungkol sa topic natin?

Participants: (collective) Opo.

Participant: Tapos na kuya, wala na kaming saloobin, nailabas na namin.

John: Ok, wala nang gustong idagdag?

Participants: (collective) wala na po.

John: Maraming salamat!...

[End of the Focus Group Discussion for Lower Section Students. QCHS Pergola, 2:50 pm]

The Researcher and Mrs. Jimenez (4th year level chair)

QCHS Administrative Building This building houses the higher section students (fourth floor). It was erected at the right side of the Administrave Building.

The first floor of this building is where lower section students find their classrooms. Notice the iron bars. Would you be surprized if people were describing this place as ‘maximum secured’? What does it resemble?

This is where the building of the lower section students is located. It is beside the covered court.

The Researcher and his cointerviewer (his sister)