A reflection on tracking practices: Are we on the right track?

Running Head: TRACKING

A reflection on tracking practicies: Are we on the right track?

Franchesca Ho Sang

Fordham University

UEGE 5102

July 16, 2008

What is tracking?

Tracking by definition

Tracking in the most simplest of terms is “grouping students by ability level in some form or another.” (Bates, 2002) This may occur on many different levels and occur in different designs. On the elementary level there are “groupings by the names of birds or animals”, on the middle and high school level there are remedial and advanced placement classes, however, in whichever form it is manifested, its foundations are constructed with vestiges of the original school of thought in which it was founded. (Bates, 2002) More specifically, tracking is now defined as “the sorting of students into categories for the purpose of instruction.” (Barquet, 2002) With that as a standing definition, anything other than complete heterogeneous grouping is considered to fall under the umbrella of tracking.

Students are usually categorized in one or a several ways: “(1) their overall achievement on standardized tests; (2) their projected future employment, most often determined by school and based on parent socio-economic status, i.e., vocational, general, or academic training; (3) specific areas where they are found to be “gifted”, for example, high in math but average in English.” (Barquet, 2002) Commonly, in lower grades students are placed into specific programs at the request of parents and a subsequent evaluation by a teacher, however, in the higher grades students are often placed based solely on recommendation of a teacher and an intellectual quotient measuring test. Most frequently students are placed on either a high or low track according to their assessed ability level.

History

The practice of tracking first appeared in the American education system in the late 1860s. (Vergon, 2002) Tracking was first developed to alleviate the pressure put on the American common schools due to a large amount of immigrants making their way to the United States as well as the increasing amount of “poor rural families making their way to cities.” (Barquet, 2002) Although there were some educational philosophers such as Freire and Eliot who felt every child was not only entitled to a fair and complete education, “others adhered to the then popular ‘social Darwinism’ theory—that children from lower social classes were inherently inferior as to their social, moral, and intellectual abilities.” (Barquet, 2002) The followers of the Darwinism theory then developed what they thought to be an appropriate level of education for minority (at that time anyone who was not white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant) and poor pupils. In the 1930s and 1940s, tracking experienced a decline in popularity due to a progressive education movement which questioned the effectiveness and appropriateness in a democratic society. (Vergon, 2002) However this period was followed by a resurgence of tracking due to the civil right enactment which demanded the desegregation of schools.

Why the derailment?

Although tracking in its best form is thought to allow students on both tracks to learn at their pace, many educators as well as students are against tracking. In fact the researches done on tracking seem to prove that it is ineffective and a direct cause of the education gap in America. Over the years studies have shown that tracking “does not equalize the educational opportunities for diverse groups of students, does not increase the efficiency of schools by maximizing learning opportunities for everyone, does not meet individual needs, does not divide students into neatly homogenous groups, and does not increase student learning.” (Barquet, 2002, Excellence) Instead it has been deducted that tracking “widens the achievement gap, retards the academic progress of many students—especially those in the average and low groups, foster low self-esteem among these same students, lower the aspirations of students who are not in the top groups, promotes school misbehavior and dropping out, and separates students along socio-economic lines, separating rich from poor, whites from non-whites.” (Barquet, 2002, Excellence)

But it is not only research that points to the inefficiencies of tracking, students from both the low and high track who have been interviewed over the course of their high school career have also shared the same sentiment. Many students felt that “they faced a tournament model—where it was easier to move down tracks than up.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006) Student also concluded that “track placements appeared arbitrary, designed to serve the needs of their schools” and because of tracking many students on the lower track received “less attentive, caring and knowledgeable teachers.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006)

Are we on the right track?

Because of evaluations along the lines of the aforementioned, detracking has been the solution brought in to fix the problem. “Detracking has been described as an equity-minded reform that attempts to level the playing field among students of different socio-economic, racial, and linguistic groups.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006) Although detracking seems to be a quick fix to a haggard problem, it is important for schools and educators to realize that detracking is not as simple as mixing ability levels in classrooms. In order for detracking to work attitudes, teacher education, as well as the school infrastructure must be changed. It is my belief that the No Child Left Behind act is in large partly due to the nations move toward detracking, but I do not think that is enough. It is noble for us to want to push students of all abilities into a heterogeneous classroom, and help them pass standardized tests, but with the achievement gap as wide as it is, it will take many more years and far more legislative push to bridge the gap. As a first year teacher I am unsure of what could accelerate this leveling of education , but I do know that once we accomplish it, America will finally be able to live up to its promise on the Statue of liberty by “breaking the cycle of poverty and oppression.” (Barquet, 2002)

References:

Vergon, C. (2002). Race, ability grouping, and the law in american education.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 9-10

Barquet, N. (2002). Excellence and equity: What research says about tracking.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 7–8

Barquet, N. (2002). Tracking perpetuates the class system in the united states of america.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 4–6

Bates, P. (2002). Beyond tracking: Tracking denies equal access. Equity coalition for

race, gender, and national origin, 2–3

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005).

Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14^th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Jones, M. & Yonezawa, S. (2006). Students’ perspectives on tracking and detracking.

Theory into practice, 5 – 23.

Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill

Dushkin.