Author
Tutor
Course
Date
Educational Tracking
Since public education was popularized in the United States, the school system has been the ground of breeding for the country’s future. All different types of people are being produced ranging from engineers, doctors, teachers, politicians, among others. There are some educational systems that will help the students excel and some that need improvement. Educational tracking is technique used by schools to separate students by academic ability. Students are often unfairly tracked by race, culture, and economic status.
National Education Association (NEA) is an organization that was once a proponent of educational tracking when it was initially proposed and applied in 1980s and 1990s. This support was tied to certain reasons. Educational tracking was once extremely common in the English speaking nations in the 1980s and 1990s. For one reason, the brainchild concept that led to its birth was much convincing and this encouraged NEA to view it as a praiseworthy practice hence supported it. The excerpt, “Tracking persisted and became more problematic as students in the lower tracks received instruction more often from the least-qualified teachers. While tremendous effort was done to improve teaching and the profession; it remained business as usual for most teachers. The NEA preserved the status quo” (Hallinan 86) points out how NEA deeply embraced the system. Just like other organizations, which supported educational tracking, NEA also considered tracking as vibrant in outlining foundation of the education, just as was thought of in England and Wales till the 70s and Ireland until just recently. The argument amongst this quarter was “it allowed teachers to provide effective instruction because they can directly focus their teaching to each student’s ability level” (Kulik and Chen-Lin 13).
National Education Association viewed the gains that came with tracking as immense. The organization supported the tracking system, thereby concurring with the observation that when all students in a cluster are at the same stage, the teacher can plan the rate of teaching to counterpart the requirements of the students and can, therefore, offer more singleton concentration. For example, “a group of high skills students may move faster and cover more material in a shorter time than a group of lower skills students with whom the teacher may have to repeat material and go at a slower pace” (Kulik and Chen-Lin 19). Finally, the organization supported the system because, in its view, it was to give United States a chance to create a unique education system that had never been seen before. This is echoed in “Educators NEA like broadly support the practice of tracking in its modern form. Teachers find that tracking facilitates instruction by making it easier to gear lessons to the ability level of the whole class” (Hallinan 103).
Though the educators’ body was for tracking initially, the controversy that followed soon made it rethink its stand. These were not hugely different from the reasons that were floated by others who were agitating for its replacement. At the time, NEA was reconsidering it stands on the system, negative attitudes towards the system were on the rise from a different side of the divide that at one time encouraged it. Similar to other bodies that were against it, the main reason that led to decline of NEA’s support was that the criteria used to track students into different groups, such as standardized tests, are themselves flawed, and can have a negative effect on students’ access to education, morale and self-esteem (Kulik and Chen-Lin 27). The general argument in the public domain “tracking, especially in practice, created greater learning opportunities for high-performing students at the expense of their lower-performing peers” (Hallinan 131) was seriously considered and was a sign of the downfall of educational tracking. Social revolution also caused a change of heart in NEA. This is particularly depicted in, “The school system was further challenged by social revolution. Teacher unions, the disabled, students with limited English proficiency, minorities, and women began to demand fair treatment in schools” (Hallinan 159). Lastly, the institution went against the system because, segregation caused inadequate interaction among students and was more of a hindrance to students ability to learn from their colleagues, than a blessing.
There were varied reasons as to why educational tracking was introduced. Its advocates noted that tracking would amplify or enhance the accomplishment of students since the teachers would be allowed to concentrate on instruction. It is noteworthy that when teachers are instructing a group of students who have relatively similar abilities, they would customize the speed of instruction according to the needs of the students. Proponents of this educational system also felt that this educational system was beneficial to all students as it allowed them to continue with education at their rate of learning. This means “the bright students would not be held back by those whose learning ability is low” (Garrity 13). Those who were not bright would also not be left behind by those that have greater ability than them. Since all students are given the opportunity to excel in their respective classes, their self esteem would rise. “Talented students especially stand to benefit from the tracked system since there is an incentive to excel” (Kulik 26). As much as tracking for ordinary instruction may not make any real difference in the scholastic achievement of students with average or low ability, it would produce considerable gains for students who are gifted in tracks that are specially designed to cater for the talented and gifted. In essence, “tracking met the needs of students who were highly gifted since they would be with their peers who have similar intellectual aptitude thereby becoming appropriately challenged and view their abilities in a realistic manner” (Kulik 34).
Moreover, having in mind that tracking separates students according to their abilities; the work of students would only be pitted against that of peers with similar abilities. This, therefore, averts the possibility of lowering one’s self-esteem that may result if they are pitted against the work of students with higher abilities than theirs. In addition, the egos of students with high abilities would be checked as they would be compared with the work of students with similar abilities. Since there exists a positive correlation between high academic achievement and high self-esteem, academic success of the students would be promoted.
Advocates of the education system also noted that it enhanced the success of students of high abilities. Studies showed that high-ability students who were in tracked classes performed better than their counterparts in non-tracked classes. In essence, scholars recommended that high-ability students spend most of their time in school with peers who have similar abilities. In the 80s and 90s, all ability levels showed a moderate improvement in the attitude towards the subject material. Tracking also “encouraged students who had low abilities to increase their participation in class since they would be separated from the intimidation of students with high abilities” (Tom 89). In addition, the proponents viewed the education system as effective in directing students towards certain areas in the labor markets.
As much as tracking had considerable positive aspects, most people do not use it today. This is because of some of the limitations that inhibited its effectiveness, especially touching on the composition of tracks. It is noteworthy that, in reality, there was no homogeneity in the tracks. In this case, some of the educational tracking system’s potential benefits could not be exploited fully. It is noteworthy that, “heterogeneity could be created over time in classes that were homogenous initially” (Tom 79). In essence, some systems allow students to be evaluated periodically to ensure that students with similar abilities are kept together.
One of the key reasons as to why many people do not use this system is because it influences attitudes of students as pertaining to other students. Studies show “students would be more apt at being friends with peers in their tracks than in other tracks”. Having in mind that “there is overrepresentation of minority and low-class students in the low tracks while Asians and the Whites dominate high tracks, the system would discourage interactions among students in these groups”, (Tom 123). However, no research whatsoever has shown any benefit for low tracks’ students from the interaction.
In addition, tracking may lead to stigmatization of students with low abilities. In some instances, the stigmatization impacts negatively on the academic performance of the student and influences his attitudes. “Studies show that, low achieving students in tracked classes stand higher likelihood of believing that there was nothing they could do about their fate than their counterparts in non-tracked classes”, (Jeanie and Marisa 87). However, proponents of the system opine that this results from the fact that their teachers impress on them a rigid mindset rather than an intrinsic attribute of the tracking system itself. In essence, teachers who enhance a mindset of growth would stimulate the students to pursue academic excellence regardless of the system.
Studies also showed that, the low-tracks were primarily composed of students from low-income families while the upper tracks were dominated by those students who hailed from families that are well-up. In essence, scholars opine that the placement of minority and poor students disproportionately in low tracks may not be a reflection of their learning abilities. “In addition, studies show that there is a disproportionate appointment of teachers in low tracks” (Tom 87). In most cases, teachers of the highest status are assigned to high-track classes while the less-experienced teachers are assigned to teach low-track classes. It is noteworthy that teachers in high-track classes are more enthusiastic and better in teaching and providing explanations than low-track classes’ teachers.
In addition, scholars also noted that there were variations in the curricula provided to the different tracks. “While acceleration and enrichment of curricula was considered a key benefit to talented and gifted students, the lessons that were taught to students in law track classes usually lacked comprehensiveness and engagement that is found in high-track classes” (Tom 46). This is a reflection of their aptness for remedial nature and is disadvantageous to the low-track students. This is because they cannot be accepted in colleges since they do not have the necessary skills and knowledge that high-track students possess. “In addition, teachers in high-track classes taught concepts and used course materials that required far-reaching critical-thinking skills”, (Jeanie and Marisa 87). This is converse to low-track teachers who draw heavily from their workbooks and usually do not assign work that would necessitate critical thinking. Overall, the curricula pertaining to high-track courses are more in-depth and intensive than those that are taught in low-track courses. “It is noteworthy that teachers spend less time addressing issues pertaining to discipline in high-track classrooms compared to low-track classes”, (Jeanie 67). There have been frequent concerns about the connection between perceived behavioral concerns and low-track students. “In such instances, teachers usually suggest that promotion of proper student behavior requires more time than development of independent learning and critical thinking”, (Jeanie 98).
Possible ways of fixing educational tracking to ensure that all students benefit
It is evident that educational tracking benefits high-ability students than low-track students in varied ways. This, however, does not undermine the advantages with which the system comes. In essence, the complete elimination of the system may be unnecessary. There are varied ways in which educational tracking may be fixed so that all the concerned students can benefit. “Scholars recommend that cooperative models of learning be incorporated as they have been proved beneficial, especially to students who have little or no success in classes that are organized around conventional instructional approaches” (Welner and Burris 45). These methods include the following.
Learning together: In this case, students work in heterogeneous groups of four or five kids on assignments in order to come up with a one-group product. “In essence, the evaluation and rewarding of students would be based on the single product or a blend of their performance, as well as the group’s overall performance” (Kulik 67).
Jigsaw: In this case, heterogeneous groups would be created and each of their members assigned responsibility for a certain section of a subject. “Members of varied groups but working on similar sections would meet to discuss the assigned topics. They would then go back to their original groups and teach their team mates on the sections in which they have expertise”, (Welner and Burris 56). However, there would be individual evaluation of the students via quizzes, and projects among other forms of evaluation.
Group Investigation: In group investigation, “small, heterogeneous groups assume considerable responsibility of making decisions as to the information that they will gather, their internal organization, as well as the communication of the lessons, learnt to their classmates”, (Jeanie and Marisa 35).
Jigsaw II: – This has similarities with the original jigsaw. “Every student is provided with common information. The students would then break into expert groups where they would learn certain subtopics, with the incorporation of team recognition on the basis of team scores” (Garrity 11). Individual high scorers and team winners would be recognized, on top of the individual scores and grades.
In conclusion, educational tracking has been raising a lot of controversy. It is evident that it comes with considerable advantages and disadvantages. More often than not, the system has been benefiting high class students, most of who come from well-to-do families, while low-track students continue languishing with poor quality education. However, there are ways in which the system could be remedied so that all students can benefit. These include learning together, Jigsaw method and group intervention.
Works Cited
Hallinan, Maureen. “Tracking: From Theory to Practice”. Sociology of Education 67.2 (1994): 79–184. Print.
Kulik, James and Chen-Lin, C. “Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs”. Gifted Children Quarterly36.2 (1992): 7–73. Print.
Karen Zittleman; Sadker, David Miller (2006).Teachers, Schools and Society: A Brief Introduction to Education with Bind-in Online Learning Center Card with free Student Reader CD-ROM. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social
Jeannie, Oakes. Keeping track: how schools structure inequality. Yale: Yale University Press, 2005. Print
Tom Loveless, The tracking wars: state reform meets school policy. New York: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. Print
Jeannie, Oakes, Marisa Saunders. Beyond tracking: multiple pathways to college, career, and civic participation. Harvard: Harvard Education Press, 2008. Print
Welner, Kevin and Burris, Carol Corbett. Alternative Approaches to the Politics of Detracking. Theory Into Practice, Volume 45, Number 1, 2006. Print
Garrity, D. Detracking With Vigilance. School Administrator, Volume 64, Number 8, pp. 10-14, 2007. Print
