Just in advance, this post is more designed to inspire talk, because I wish to see what everyone has to say about this rather heated topic.
As Maureen Hallinan has so properly pointed out to us, tracking is a system in which theory is designed to focus the education of the student by pairing them into similar groups of knowledge and ability. This sounds like a great solution to help bring up the overall grades of a failing school. Use this program to target those kids that are in the most need of help and provide them with special attention to help improve their intelligence while not making the students who are at the higher end of the level bored and lose interest.
With this concept, not only are students being helped out but the job is easier on the teacher as well. With tracking no longer will you have students who vary widely in their test scores, but you can focus on a particular group, because that group is the only group within your classroom.
This sounds great! However, with this (in practice) has become a huge issue involving segregation and many other issues at hand. Hallinan does a very comprehensive job explaining all of the pros, cons, and ways to improve the tracking system to make it a better and more effective system.
The question I pose to everyone is this. Can tracking help failing schools and improve the test-score gap? While the social aspects of "segregating" the low SES and ethnic children into the lower level classes is a monsterous issue, would not the benefits of allowing these students to move at their own pace out number these in the long run? Or does tracking involve the opposite and simply further increase the test-score gap as smart kids get smarter while the lower tracked kids just try to keep up?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thank you, Daniel, for the invitation to a rousing discussion. I hope our lively class “debate” flows over into the blog discussion for this week….
Your question about whether or not tracking can fix the test-score gap is an important, yet secondary, consideration. The more fundamental question, and one which you alluded to when you mentioned the “monstrous issue,” is the ethical dimension of tracking. Only once we determine that tracking does not significantly harm students can we begin to evaluate its appropriateness for use in schools. How does the class weigh in? Is tracking a morally reprehensible fad, or an ethical option that demands continued use?
And to answer the question you posed: maybe. If practice coincides with theory, it would likely help to a limited extent; yet the readings have pointed out that reality is often far from theory and can in fact increase the gap rather than ameliorate it.
In relation to the ethical dimension that Matt eluded to, I think the answer lies in consideration of why tracking even exists? In my opinion, it is to provide differential instruction through scaffolding to most appropriately serve students.
It is my opinion, however, that the negatives of tracking outweigh the positives and that these goals can be upheld within a classroom that is not tracked. What becomes most important is a teacher's understanding of a students learning styles, strengths and needs. Additionally, teachers are able to differentiate their instruction by providing choice within assignments and consequently opportunities for students to improve individualized academic achievement.
To address whether or not tracking widens the test-score gap, I believe that even if it does, that should not be what discredits tracking. I personally am not a fan of the tracking system, and have found through experience that it is far more difficult for somebody who gets tracked low to get to upper level classes, however I do not think that the test-score gap of low achievers and high achievers, of different races, or of different SES's should be the primary concern of those deciding whether or not tracking is a valid program. If all students are benefiting from tracking, than personally i do not care whether or not the gap is increasing, only that students are seeing some benefit. Schools are not where the gap originates, and will not be the place where the gap is solved. Closing the gap means accelerating the rate at which students on the lower end of the spectrum learn while keeping those at the upper end of the spectrum from accelerating at a similar or higher rate. I would argue that this is unfair to those at the upper end of the spectrum. While equity is important, the school is not responsible for causes of the gap, and as long as schools continue to improve how students learn I feel that worrying about a gap is pointless.
Obviously this is not the popular viewpoint, and maybe i am naive, but I don't see the harm of the gap, as long as all students are increasing their test scores. There are too many variables for the school to be able to control as shown in the Jenks article. There are more issues that arise in the culture that children grow up that lead to the gap, and these should be the things that other agencies (not schools) should focus on.
Hopefully my rhetoric did not come across as callous in this post, i just was very interested by the Jenks article and find some of the suggestions that were made in it to be counterproductive, and not research supported (most of his overarching statements seem to be more inference than research proven)
The goal of tracking is to divide students into separate classes by skill level. This way the educator can easily teach to the class ability level. Our discussion/debate on Thursday pointed out that the intent of tracking is good-natured but the follow-through is the problem. Schools often become derailed in their tracking procedures. The idea of having all the kids in my classroom on the same ability level sounds appealing. Yet, only as long as the students are assigned to the correct level and they are able to move as their skills improve. Otherwise students could easily get stuck in a track for multiple years without the opportunity to move to a new skill level. Plus, the stigma that goes along with being in the low track without hope for moving up is hardly motivating.
So the question becomes do we trust that schools will improve their own systems or do we scratch the system all together and go in a different route?
I agree with Erica in the "good-natured" theory of tracking. But like any theory, it can be tainted. Subjective views on tracking can cause a focus on SES, family involvement, and racial issues.
Based on my experiences, my tracked students in Math and Reading are not tracked by their economic status but solely on national test scores ( the objective tracking view mentioned in our articles). The students in the "lower" track have a smaller class size, which allows the teacher to focus on the students in need. I believe that if we must keep tracking, then we should keep tracking objective and not subjective. Then, the moral and ethical issues cannot come into play. Therefore, are the kids ever able to get out of their track? In my school, yes. *Please keep in mind that I work in a private school. But, not without alot of summer work and re-testing to make sure they can proceed to the higher track next year. Of course, not many students ( or parents) are willing to tutor their children over the summer to accomplish this task.
So, I would love it if some brilliant educator came up with an idea that would not be so controversial as tracking, but if we have to keep tracking until then, let it be objective. For a teacher in a tracked school,keep encouraging the students in whatever level they are in to work as hard as they can to increase their scores and gain confidence in the subject.
It has already been mentioned a few times that tracking was created with good intentions that have not sustained throughout the program. It does seem like tracking has the potential to narrow the test score gap, provided the students are objectively placed, given good resources and teachers despite their assigned track, and are aware that their track assignment is not permanent. However, that is not the reality.
Even though tracking has not proven to be able to narrow the test score gap for various reasons, there is still an issue about detracking. I wonder if eliminating tracks completely would bring just as many problems as the tracking system itself? Is there any way to fix the problem in the long term without hurting the institution in the short term?
I think I'm agreeing with pretty much everyone when I say that I think tracking is good in theory, though usually not in practice. The practice of tracking could probably be made better, especially if the tests used to place students in tracks are based solely on academics. But, as Oakes (whom I like to call "the angry one") points out, schools, and thus tracking, do not exist in a vacuum, but will always be influenced by social and political forces.
As Michelle (we know your secret identity, ~m)suggests, detracking holds problems of its own. In Yonezawa's article, detracking by student choice could not solve the problems caused by tracking in the first place - e.g. segregation by race and ethnicity.
I think that tracking could probably work - IF we could remove social factors from the dividing of students into tracks and IF we could remove the stigma attached to lower tracks and IF we could ensure that lower-tracked students receive quality instruction and resources and encouragement, rather than simply being given up on. I think that's probably too many IFs for the real world. But, since detracking does not really solve the problem, maybe the only choice we have is to try to reach the ideal.
I agree with Lindsey that one of the main problems with tracking is the "negative stigma" about being in the lower tracks. While ideally we would hope that track placement is not permanent, I think the reality is that many students get placed in a track and stay in the track throughout the rest of their schooling.
I think a lot of this may be contributed to a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Many teachers teach differently to the lower tracks than the higher tracks. Lower tracks are not "expected" to excel as quickly as other students and as a result I imagine many students begin to stop trying...solely because teachers don't have high expectations for them. We saw this in the documentary we watched in class. The teacher talked very differently to the lower track classes, compared to the teacher holding discussions in the higher tracks.
So, to answer Daniel's question: I don't believe that tracking right now could improve the test-score gap...not until these stereotypes and negative stigmas are removed from the various tracks.
Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips argue that "eliminating the disparity would dramatically reduce economic and educational inequality between blacks and whites." That closing the gap would promote racial equality.
This is an overwhelmingly complex issue that is difficult for me to grasp entirely. Closing the gap would entail a profound cultural shift in society, which would meet many barriers. Although schools may not be the place to make the change, it remains the only tangible "solution" to this problem. Tracking has been viewed as part of the solution, but obviously, we al seem to agree, it is not. Michelle raises an interesting question: "I wonder if eliminating tracks completely would bring just as many problems as the tracking system itself? Is there any way to fix the problem in the long term without hurting the institution in the short term?" I am sure there would be problem as there are with any system, but I wonder if they would outweigh the negative effects of tracking. I am not sure the answers to these questions, but they definitely are worth considering.
Just like most things that end up not working, tracking could work if it was done well. With that being said, most of the time it is not, as we have all discovered. Unfortunately and fortunately (I guess), we need to find a system that works so well that when done in a mediocre fashion that it's still effective.
Tracking can be great for the gifted student, but for every other student it is definitely not the answer because they tend to get swept under the rug.
Rather than looking at those who are "naturally talented" in the classroom, the system should be analyzing HOW students are taught and know different ways to teach so that every student can be able to grasp the information in different ways, since we're learning that different learners require different learning styles.
Now that I'm off of my soapbox, I agree with Emily in her saying that the negatives of tracking outweigh the positives, etc. She is exactly right.
I would question off of Devri's comment about giftedness... Would it be more beneficial to possibly track students by learning styles?
I agree with everyone in the since that our schools aren't independent of the outside stigmas, but I must ask... what are we going to do about it? As teachers we will confronted with going against the grain for the benefit of the child. After all why are we teaching? Students need us to differentiate our lessons. Can we do this in a heterogeneous classroom? or is it necessary to separate them in a way so that their needs are met. Maybe like Devri was talking about... would it be beneficial to possibly track the students in a learning style way? or what shall we do?
I don't have an answer, but it is something that I do struggle with. I do understand that all students benefit from heterogeneous classrooms, but is that the way to meet all of their needs?
Post a Comment