The Role of Tracking in American Schools - Report Example

Running Head: THE ROLE OF TRACKING IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS The Role of Tracking in American Schools The Role of Tracking in American Schools To discuss the role of tracking in American schools, the term ‘tracking’ should first of all be explained. Hallinan defines tracking as “organization of students for instruction, based on their ability and achievement”. She equals tracking to “homogeneous grouping” (Hallinan, 1994, p.79). Loveless identifies tracking as a practice of students’ grouping into certain classes judging by their ability, as well as arranging curriculum based on levels of difficulty (Loveless, 1999, p.1). He further explains that tracking may take place within a specific grade, as well as extend to grade levels. To illustrate the former, Loveless talks about eight graders who can hardly read and students who enjoy Shakespeare plays being placed in different English classes. The latter may be well illustrated by the practice of students’ assignment to math courses starting with fundamentals and ending with abstraction of calculus (Loveless, 1999, p. 1). Theoretically, the purpose of this practice is grounded on the belief that tracking promotes learning thanks to its provision of a good fit between the instruction level and needs of students regarding their learning. The tracking theory asserts that tracking allows tailoring the instruction according to students’ ability levels (Hallinan, 1999, p.79). This is thought to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall instructional process. These claims, however, have been widely criticized by opponents of tracking, who mention a number of negative effects of tracking on students’ academic, social and emotional development, thus questioning the relevance of this practice to the school setting. For example, Jenny Oakes, a professor from University of California at Los Angeles, believes that among other aspects, tracking practice is related to racial segregation in modern American school (Oakes, 1994, p.91). My goal in this paper is to discuss the role of tracking in modern American school. To achieve my goal, I have divided the essay into four parts. The first one aims at highlighting the historical background of tracking in American schools. The second section discusses the positive effects of tracking on school practice, focusing on the proponents’ views regarding this phenomenon. The third part of this paper looks into criticism of tracking by its opponents and possible negative effects tracking has on the school practice. Finally, I conclude my paper with the fourth part which sums up the role of tracking within an American school. Historical Background of Tracking The history of tracking within American school system can be traced back to the turn of the 20th century. Since that time, believes Oaks, schools have used tracking “to address social, personal, and workforce needs, as well as cognitive ones.” (Oakes, 1994, p. 86). In Rubin’s research “Detracking in Context: How Local Constructions of Ability Complicate Equity-Geared Reform”, it is stated that tracking with a variety of its modifications has been one of the major organizing practices typical for American public schools for nearly a century (Rubin, 2008). Tracking started to come into use at the beginning of the 20th century when G.Stanley Hall’s notions about the inclinations and emotional peculiarities of adolescents were taken as the theoretical ground for implementing a non-scholarly curriculum at American school. At the same time, at the outset of the previous century schools were known to enroll lots of immigrant kids.In this respect, the statement made by Lewis Terman should be mentioned that despite the fact immigrant pupils could not be expected to develop mental abilities that allowed mastering abstractions, they could be enrolled to separate classes, which might help them become well-qualified workers. This is how tracking became a means of sorting out children who were noticed to have limited preparation or schooling abilities. A specific example goes back to 1908 when the superintendent of schools in Boston admitted his support of the new practice and heralded schools’ “sorting out” role (Oakes, 1994, p.86). In the context discussed above, tracking quickly turned into the means of internal segregation (Wheelock, 1992). In particular, Loveless notes, racial segregationists along with proponents of social Darwinism “twisted to their own ends the idea that schools should tailor activities more closely to characteristics of students, insisting that students of different races and economic classes needed vastly different forms of education to prepare them for their rightful stations in life” (Loveless, 1998). Moreover, it has been revealed that tracking was widely used as a discriminative tool at the times of Depression in the United States. It helped to sort out students that were pouring into high schools in astronomical numbers because of extremely high rates of unemployment. Tracking was based on tests that measured academic success and students’ IQ, and was implemented into practice with the aim both humane and evil (Loveless, 1998). The kinds of tracks are known to have changed over the period of the twentieth century. At the beginning one could distinguish between academic, vocational and general tracks depending on the type of preparation provided. Wheelock points out that up to 8 different tracks representing certain programs of the curriculum had been developed by some American schools by the beginning of the 1920s (Wheelock, 1992). These tracks aimed at assessing pupils’ likely futures – either vocational or social ones (Wheelock, 1992). Today most schools in the United States determine track levels depending on the difficulty of the course. So the following tracks are distinguished: basic, regular, advanced or honored (Hallinan, 1994, p. 79). While these levels are still called tracks, the tracking systems of nowadays are known to function in a different way. While in the past grouping was carried out across the whole regimen of academic subjects and courses, today it concerns each subject. If, however, to compare them with the classification of the past, “regular and high-level courses (are) loosely equivalent to the academic track and the basic and lower courses loosely equivalent to the general and vocational tracks” (Hallinan, 1994, p. 79) A common thing about tracking in the majority of secondary and middle schools in America is they track their pupils both for maths and English. At the same time, lots of schools track their pupils for social studies, science, language, as well as other courses. Primary schools are reported to track the children as having high, average or low ability. A sad thing about this is immense influence of other than academic ability factors on students’ placement (Hallinan, 1994, p.79). Support for Tracking in American Schools Public opinion poll initiated by the Public Agenda Foundation unveils wide support for tracking among parents, teachers, and students (Loveless, 1999, p.1). These people claim that tracking is beneficial in a few significant respects. The biggest advantage is its allowing school teachers to arrange lessons bearing in mind the level of specific abilities of students in this particular class (Ansalone, 2003). In this context, gifted students have the biggest benefit since they actively develop their academic abilities being placed in tracks specially designed for them. Specifically, talented students now get an opportunity to study together with their peers who are on the same level of intellectual development (Rogers, 1991). This helps them keep challenged and allows assessing their progress in a realistic manner (Fielder et al, 2002). One more argument in support for tracking is comparing students’ achievements to their classmates’. This ensures comparing with those that have a similar level of academic achievement, and is viewed as a way of preventing self-esteem lowering or inflation. This however functions differently in practice, since students often suffer from being placed among low-achieving students’, and their self-esteem lowers. One more important argument in favor of tracking is it permits high-ability students to achieve better results. In this respect, the study by Kulik and Kulik is worth considering (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). In their research, the scholars proved that gifted students had higher results being placed in tracked classes than similarly gifted students who were placed in heterogeneous classes. These findings are supported by Rogers who urges that gifted students should spend the biggest part of their day at school with peers of the same ability (Rogers, 1991). On the other hand, tracking is viewed as a means of encouraging low-achieving students to take part in classes. Thanks to high-ability students being removed to another track, low-ability pupils are not intimidated anymore and feel free about class participation (Slavin, 1990, p.479). Also, some scholars believe that tracking is a productive technique for assigning students to particular segments of labor market based on their abilities and academic achievement (Ansalone, 2003). Opposition to Tracking in American Schools Although tracking system has been supported by many educators, many more argue that this practice should be eliminated. It is referred to as a source of generation of “fierce, protracted political conflict in communities across the nation, bitterly dividing parents, educators and the general public” (Loveless, 1999, p.2). Specifically, negative effects of tracking can be traced down in the following areas: segregation, low social status, heterogeneity, slower achievement of pupils in low tracks, negative social psychological outcomes (Hallinan, 1994) Segregation is being referred to as an unintended outcome of tracking which is about tracking students based on their belonging to a particular race or ethnicity, as well as social class. To illustrate, Hallinan writes, “Since academic achievement is related to students’ background, minority and low-income students are disproportionately assigned to lower tracks” (Hallinan, 1994, p.81). Oakes in her “One More Thought” asserts that tracking is related to race. However, she also points at the importance of socioeconomic status. Specifically, the scholar admits that despite the fact that it is African American, as well as Latino kids who wind up in classes for low-achievers, the majority of kids disadvantaged by the practice of tracking are Whites from poor or working class families (Oakes, 1994, p. 91) Low social status is another negative consequence of tracking. It is about the academic hierarchy that students’ lose their position in. Being placed in low-ability tracks, they lose respected position among peers and get a lower position in the academic hierarchy (Hallinan, 1994, p. 81). This may lead to their motivation decrease. Despite the fact tracking is about placing students in homogenous classes, heterogeneity cannot be avoided in practice. As Hallinan points out, schools may fail to create homogeneous tracks, which is harmful for instruction that aims at responding to students’ abilities (Hallinan, 1994, p. 81). Next, students in low tracks have very slow rates of achievement growth. This can be partially explained by lack of high qualified teachers, uninteresting classes, and low expectations by teachers. One more thing that negatively influences the instruction productivity is disciplinary problems. In addition, negative social psychological outcomes of tracking are evident. Just as pupils realize teachers have low expectations of them and the tasks are specially crafted for them as low-achievers, their self-confidence suffers greatly and they may even become detached from the process of academic learning (Hallinan, 1994, p. 81). Here is an empirical example of a negative impact of tracking on students’ achievements within an American school. An account of Imani Perry, a 15-year-old girl of African Amerian origin, regarding her experience in public high school, provides evidence of students’ segregation and deliberate training for vocational purposes achieved through the tracking systems. To illustrate, “In lower-level classes where minority students are most often found and where bad textbooks are used without outside resources, the reading has less content and the point of reading is to perfect reading skills, not to broaden thinking skills or gain the knowledge of how the subject is currently affecting us. It is often not possible to broaden your thinking skills or knowledge with the books used in lower-level classes, which are more often stripped of any content” (Perry, 2006, p. 454). Conclusion In conclusion, tracking plays a pivotal role in students’ success achievement/underachievement. While it has been widely used in American schools to provide better opportunities for all children, it certainly serves some students better than the others. Having explored both disadvantages and advantages of tracking, I have come to the conclusion that tracking is beneficial for the authorities and for talented students. Since tracking places low-achievers in special tracks for low-ability students, it determines their occupation in the future (the menial character of their jobs). Plus, high-ability students get a favorable environment for their development, while low-ability students appear to lose a lot. Low self-esteem, lack of motivation, disciplinary problems and students’ dissatisfaction with their status among peers are negative consequences that need to be seriously dealt with. Unless they are handled, no single benefit of tracking can be considered a true benefit. References 1. Ansalone, George (2003). Poverty, Tracking, and the Social Construction of Failure: International Perspectives on Tracking. Journal of Children & Poverty 9 (1). 2. Hallinan, M. (1994) Further Thoughts on Tracking. Sociology of Education. Vol. 67 (2), pp. 89-91. 3. Hallinan, M. (1994) Tracking: From Theory to Practice. Sociology of Education. Vol. 67 (2), pp. 79-84. http://www.tcrecord.org/printcontent.asp?contentID14603. 4. Kulik et al (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs". Gifted Children Quarterly 36 (2): 73–77. 5. Loveless, T. (1998) The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved on 19 December 2011 from http://challengebychoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/the-history-of-tracking.pdf. 6. Loveless, T. (1999) The tracking wars: state reform meets school policy. Brookings Institution Press, 1999. 7. Oakes, J.(1994) More than Misapplied Technology: A Normative and Political Response to Hallinan on Tracking. Sociology of Education. Vol. 67 (2), pp. 84-91. 8. Oakes, J.(1994) One More Thought. Sociology of Education. Vol. 67 (2), p. 91. 9. Perry, I. (2006) A Black Student’s Reflection on Private and Public Schools. In A.Sadovnik (Ed.) Exploring Education: An Introduction to the Foundations of Education (3rd Edition). Pearson Education. 10. Rogers, Karen B, Ph.D. (1991) The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of the Gifted and Talented Learner, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. 11. Rubin, B. (2008). Detracking in Context: How Local Constructions of Ability Complicate Equity-Geared Reform. Teachers College Record. Retrieved on December 19, 2011 from 12. Slavin, Robert E. (1990). Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 60 (3): 471–499. 13. Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save Americas schools. New York: New Press. Read More