Getting Back on Track



By 03/25/2011

3 Comments | Print | NO PDF |

One of the dirtiest words in American education today is “tracking.” Reformers and ed-school types alike deride the approach as racist, classist, and worthy of eradication. And if they are talking about the practice of confining some kids—typically poor or minority or both—into dead-end tracks with soulless, ditto-driven instruction, they are absolutely right.

But they are dead wrong when they call for elimination of tracking en toto—of removing all “honors” courses, of putting all agemates in the same class regardless of their level of preparedness. That’s a recipe for failure for kids of all achievement levels—and more proof that today’s policy discussion is often devoid of common sense.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist—or even a cognitive scientist—to know that kids (and adults) learn best when presented with material that is challenging—neither too easy so as to be boring nor too hard as to be overwhelming. Like Goldilocks, we want it just right. Grouping kids so that instruction can be more closely targeted to their current ability levels helps make teaching and learning more efficient.

Thankfully, we’re getting close to going beyond tracking—not by grouping all kids together, but by moving in the opposite direction, by customizing instruction to individual students. With the advent of online-learning technologies and more targeted assessments, schools are discovering ways to pinpoint exactly what students know and serve up instruction that meets them there.

Models like School of One are starting to deliver on that vision. At School of One, a middle school math program in New York City, students are placed in specific learning modules based on their performance the previous day, and on a sophisticated algorithm. Some kids are sent to small-group instruction with similarly-abled peers; others head to one-on-one online tutoring; others work independently on a computer; others get more traditional classroom instruction. It’s all customized to match the students’ needs and abilities. (Read more about School of One and other models of individualized instruction in this excellent Education Next article.)

Proponents of detracking want to erase all of this progress. Kevin Welner, a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder and Carol Burris, principal of a detracked Long Island high school, have gone so far as to present a policy brief pushing for states to ban student tracking. They argue that heterogeneous classrooms will lift all boats, ensuring that all students are afforded one “high caliber” level of instruction. That sounds great, but what if some kids are six grade levels ahead of their peers—adeptly solving proofs while their classmates struggle with long division?

Of course, we don’t organize much of high school life this way. We have “tracking” in extracurriculars. The most talented basketball players hit the court together on varsity. The lesser skilled adolescents don JV jerseys. The same goes for foreign-language instruction. Those on the way to learning Spanish enroll in, say, Español IV, not Spanish I. But, with forced detracking, those talented in math are corralled into classrooms with lower-achievers to sit through 180 days of potentially under-stimulating instruction.

Why do we discriminate against academically talented kids this way? Because “social justice” demands it, detracking proponents argue. Tracking, they say, perpetuates our society’s pernicious divides. And, by default, detracking will close them.

This is a difficult issue. It’s true that schools serving both affluent and poor students will tend to face huge achievement gaps. Narrowing these gaps—by bringing up the achievement of the kids who are behind, not by suppressing the achievement of the top students—is absolutely a worthy goal. But “social justice” shouldn’t require us to adopt a policy that could do material harm to a broad swath of American children. And, based on a survey we administered to teachers a few years back, they agree. (See Figure E.)

But in the detracking debate, that’s what we’re talking about: asking students who are gifted in math or literature or science to expend precious learning time helping other kids develop basic skills. In doing so, we’re ignoring the needs of our strongest students—and we aren’t doing our struggling students any favors.

Surely no child should be put in a classroom where she isn’t challenged. The detracking contingent has that right. But it shouldn’t be only our low-achievers who garner attention—and who demand “social justice.” That push for a challenging education goes for high-achieving kids, too.

—Mike Petrilli

A modified version of this argument was given by the author at an American Enterprise Institute debate entitled “Should Schools Detrack?” The event wrap-up can be found here.





Comment on this article
  • Carol Burris says:

    The brief that Kevin Welner and I wrote describes the overwhelming evidence about the proven harms of tracking and about the potential of detracking. The paper proposes that states adopt policies (described in detail) to phase out tracking in a thoughtful way through grade 10 in order to prepare more students to take college-ready courses such as IB, AP and honors courses in the final years of high school.

    At the AEI debate, Mike Petrilli also saw the evidence that I presented from South Side High School in Rockville Centre that clearly demonstrates how we were able to detrack and close the gap without hurting the achievement of our highest achievers. Our strongest students have, in fact, prospered – as have the others. I encourage your readers to go to AEI’s website and watch the debate for themselves (http://www.aei.org/event/100366).

    I am not sure how a detracking reform like the one at our school “stops progress” in individualizing instruction. As worrisome as the perpetuation of harmful tracking practices, however, is the computer-based solution that Mr. Petrilli is offering as an alternative way to teach children, rather than a supplement to provide differentiation. It is important to understanding more about “School of One” and what it may or may not offer to the highly talented students for whom Mike expresses concern.

    Here is how “School of One” is described in a recent edition of Ed Week. “…envision a hospital where teachers are surgeons summoned only in crucial cases, and the students are patients whose injuries are the most difficult questions” (p. 18, Education Week, March 17, 2011). Unless a student has a particularly severe ‘injury’, the teaching is apparently left to the computers. That hardly seems like the recipe for meeting the needs of highly talented students who are divergent, creative thinkers. How easy it would be to abandon them while the “surgeons” work on the “injuries”.

    In the same issue, the article “Tailoring Mathematics for Young Minds” focuses on yet another computer-based instructional program called Reasoning Mind. The article states, “…the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation see the potential that Reasoning Mind could provide long-term savings for districts looking to increase class sizes and decrease teacher salary expenses” (p. 15). Judy Goldberg opines that “we don’t have the best human capital in teaching” and that “kids come in with all sorts of deficiencies” (p. 15). Clearly the agenda goes far beyond the desire to meet the needs of all learners.

    Is technology a helpful tool for differentiation—of course it is. But I have not yet met a computer that knows when a child is being bullied, abused, or even simply bored. The devoted teachers at our detracked school are not mere “human capital,” and we measure our students by their strengths not their “sorts of deficiencies”. In which school would you prefer to trust your children?

    Carol Corbett Burris, Ed.D.

  • miriam k freedman says:

    Thank you, thank you, for opening this discussion. It’s long overdue.

    ‘One size fits all’ in education just doesn’t work. Tracking is the opposite of one size fits all–it is useful and good in many situations and leads to more learning for all students–and it is not useful in other situations.

    Similar to ‘inclusion,’ can it be that the anti-tracking folks are more driven by social justice issues than by pedagogy. And I always wonder why the football team is OK when it is the ultimate tracking situation!

    It’s time to let teachers do what works for kids to learn. When that approach also tracks social issues, that’s great. When it does not, in my view, pedagogy and more learning should prevail. One size, one approach does NOT fit all.

  • Kris says:

    Agreed. I just completed student teaching in a math class where several students were at a basic level (many of them special ed) and several more were advanced. Literally within the first 5 minutes of class the advanced students “got it” and were ready to move on while others took the whole 44 minutes and still struggled. My heart went out to those students done early — the school was not equipped (yet) to handle these cases. Even my cooperating teacher said that when she taught in another school many years ago, she had a “low level” class. Since the kids moved at a similar pace she was able to tailor the class for them and moved them ahead 3 grade levels in one year!

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    *

         3 Comments
    Sponsored Results
    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors