I’ve spent a lot of time this week thinking about tracking, especially for “gifted” students. Tracking, placing students in higher or lower level classes based on their perceived ability and achievement, is a topic that has come up in several classes so far this year, always accompanied by the fact that it seems to favor the advantaged students. Low-income and minority students, particularly African American and Latino students, are dramatically under-represented in higher level classes, and over-represented in the lower or remedial tracks. This is true even when the minority students have the same test scores as white or Asian students (Oakes and Lipton, 2007). Clearly, tracking is not providing our students with a socially just education that is sufficient to meet the needs of all students. But how do we fix it?
In discussions about tracking, I often hear people advocate detracking as a solution to social justice issues in schools. While this sounds obvious, I’m not sure it is that easy. Simply detracking and placing everyone in mixed-ability classrooms won’t meet the needs of all students, either. I would have hated school if I was forced to be in the “regular” math and English classes, simply because they moved too slowly for me and didn’t offer opportunities to explore topics more in-depth. I absolutely loved my AP literature and calculus classes because they challenged me. If we are going to eliminate tracking, then we need to make sure the classrooms we place all students in are equipped to challenge and support learners of every ability level. Most classrooms and curriculums would need to change for this to happen.
One form that detracking is taking in some schools is to place every student in the higher-level classes. Oakes and Lipton (2007) write about this scenario in Rockville Center School District in New York. Rockville started by having all middle school students take the advanced math class, and eventually succeeding in graduating 82 percent of African American and Latino students with an honors diploma. The achievement gap narrowed and all groups of students improved (Oakes, 2007). Federal Way School District adopted a similar program this school year, automatically placing all students who met standards on a state standardized test in AP classes (story here). As a result, students who wouldn’t normally see themselves as capable of being in an advanced class are seeing themselves rise to the challenge.
Even if all students are not studying the same advanced curriculum, detracking could work if the classroom was able to adapt for all learners. This could involve changes to instructional strategies, assessment opportunities, and content that provides opportunities for students of all abilities to be challenged and supported. A Philidelphia study found that both low- and high-achieving students benefit from detracking when it includes such classroom changes (Oakes and Lipton, 2007). Detracking isn’t as simple as sticking everyone in the same class.
Working toward social justice in the classroom and providing every child with a quality education suitable to his or her skills and interests is a goal that every educator should work for. The elimination of tracking seems like it would help accomplish this goal, given the racial and socioeconomic implications of tracking. However, we must be careful how we go about doing so. Simply dumping mixed-ability groups of students in a single classroom won’t help. Providing all children with a mediocre, standardized education is no more socially just than tracking.
References:
Oakes, J. and Lipton, M. (2007). Teaching to change the world (3rd Ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Oakes, J. (2007). Democracy’s Canaries. In Oakes, J. and Lipton, M. Teaching to change the world (3rd Ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Caitlin's bPortfolio 