Tracking In Schools and Its Effects on Equality and Quality of Education - Term Paper Example

? SOC 346 Tracking in schools and its effects on equality and quality of education Tracking in schools involves the separation of pupils based on their academic ability into various groups for all subjects and curriculum within a school. A tracking system involves the entire school population, the whole of which is assigned to classes depending on whether the overall academic achievement is above below average, average or normal. Students attend classes only with students whose overall academic achievement is the same as their own. Most tracking systems used in many schools diverge in what students are taught. Students in academically advanced tracks study foreign languages, mathematics, and literature while those in less academic tracks acquire vocational skills or business skills. The use of tracking was popular in English-speaking countries, but the practice is less used now. Strong tracking systems formed the foundation of the Tripartite System in Wales and England well into the 1970s and in Northern Ireland until 2009. Germany still uses a strongly tracked system whereby students' achievements in their final four years of primary school determine the type of secondary school they will be allowed to attend, and subsequently the type of education they will receive. American schools have also used tracking systems, though these systems are considered to be weaker than those in Great Britain and Germany. Local American schools assign students to classrooms based on their overall achievement; a given classroom will therefore be composed of students with low, average or high academic achievement. Hallinan (1994) notes that secondary school students were assigned to academic, general, or vocational tracks and that each track had courses that were designed to prepare students for postsecondary education or careers. Tracking is aimed at increasing learning. Proponents of tracking argue that it permits the teachers to provide instructions to the best ability of their students. A good balance between a student’s ability and the level of instruction provided is believed to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of this process. Therefore, tracking is viewed to enhance cognitive development. According to the Sociological theory, there are 7 aspects of a society. One of this is groups (organizations). Macionis et al. (2010) define a group as being made of 2 or more people who identify and interact with one another. Both groups and organizations operate according to general rules. The use of tracks in schools serves to place students in schools such groups. Hallinan (1994) describes 2 issues concerning the effectiveness of tracking that makes it the subject of debate. One deals with whether tracking, when compared to other methods of grouping, if it is more effective in promoting students’ learning. The other deals with whether all students in a track benefit from tracking to the same level. This debate is fanned by assumptions about the operation of tracking and how it affects the students involved. Among these assumptions are that placement to a track is dependent mainly on academic standards, that the tracks are strictly homogeneous when it comes to students’ ability and that assignments to a track are permanent. Other assumptions are that tracking impacts negatively on the self-esteem of low-ability students, that low-ability students are problematic to teach because they lack the motivation to learn, and that tracking limits the postsecondary education options of low-track students. Hallinan (1994) concludes that the assignment of students to tracks is based on both academic and non-academic considerations. Academic factors that influence track placement are grades, scores on standardized tests, teachers’ and counselors’ recommendations. Hallinan (1994) suggests that reforms to the tracking system should be made so as to counter its negative consequences associated with it. She recommends that students engage in integrated activities during the school day. Hallinan (1994) also suggests that by changing preconceived notions about low-track students, availing more engaging lessons in class, and upping the bar for students' performance then the negative effects of tracking could be minimized. To avoid stigmatization of low-track students, Hallinan (1994) suggests that schools should challenge low-track students to achieve highly and that they should offer public rewards for any gains made in academic achievement. Gamoran (1992) defines tracking to mean the broad, programmatic divisions that separate students in all academic subjects. He claims ability grouping to refer to divisions among students for specific subjects. According to Gamoran (1992), students are divided depending on the measured or perceived school performance. He concludes that both grouping and tracking do not add to a school’s overall achievement in as much as they promote inequality. In a sense, they widen the gap between high-track and low-track students, this from the fact that high-track students gain more while low-track students fall further behind. Tracking is more beneficial to high-track students because of the high quality of instruction at this level, coupled with the more conducive learning environment. Gamoran (1992) points out that low-track students learn in less conducive environments that have more disruptions. He also notes the differences that exist between the two tracks: at the low tracks, a lot of emphasis is placed on recitation and worksheets. However, at the high tracks, there are more cases of problem solving and critical thinking. Oakes (1985) also adds that in high-track classes, teachers teach advanced concepts which require substantial thinking skills. Gamoran (1992) also asserts that teachers in low-track classes have a tendency to draw most of their concepts from workbooks and do not frequently assign work that requires critical thinking. The fragmented nature of learning at the low tracks can be attributed to the fact that the teachers in low-track classes spend more time on the behavior management of their students and less on instruction. Gamoran (1992) also claims that high-track students, compared to low-track students, spend more time on homework, and turn in more assignments. He offers 2 suggestions to help limit the inequality brought about by tracking and grouping. These are: Reducing the use of grouping and tracking Research has found that inequality is on the rise in schools where students do not change tracks very often. The more flexible the tracking system is, the more benefits there are to overall school achievement and subsequently greater equity. To reduce grouping, the most rigid forms of tracking should be eliminated, these include the inflexible high schools’ program assignment and the elementary schools’ whole day tracking. Elimination of grouping should involve teachers; they should learn new strategies to help them enhance the learning of all students in classes. Improve the use of ability grouping Schools ought to reassess students' capabilities when making track assignment decisions. They must put in place measures to enable students who have missed classes to make up for the school material they have missed in. This can be by way of tutorials and it would make sure they are not held back by any lack of coverage of the required curricular. This however, requires an input by the students who must take up the extra work. Morale boosting activities should be implemented by schools. These include rotating the teachers so that low-track students can have the opportunity to be taught by the same teachers who also teach the high-track students. Gamoran (1992) states that grouping systems that change the curriculum so as to address the needs of the students, coupled with those that divide students depending on their skills, are more effective at the elementary level. At the secondary level, he notes that low-track classes should introduce remedial courses so as to allow the low-track students the opportunity to catch up with the rest of the students. Oakes (1985) notes that there is a relationship between a student’s socioeconomic status and his placement in a specific track. Key to the socioeconomic status is the ethnicity of the student. The chances of being assigned to the various tracks are not equal as they should be. Students from minority groups and those from poor backgrounds have been found in staggeringly high proportions in the low-ability tracks. In a 1992 report compiled by the U.S. Department of Education about tracking in Mississippi, 52% of the total school enrolment was made up of African American children, yet of this 52%, it was only 16% that were in the Gifted and Talented programs. Oakes (1985) concludes that in multiracial schools, minority students are found in very large numbers in low-track classes and in very small numbers in high-track classes. Oakes (1985) studied the various ways in which knowledge was spread in various schools that had tracks. She noted that the English and mathematics subjects learnt by the low-track students were simply the “diluted” versions of those learnt by their high-track colleagues. Oakes (1985) concluded that the curricular used in tracks was in such a way that it would lock students in low-tracks onto this track, because of the topics that are omitted. This would result in students in low-tracks being denied the chance to learn the necessary topics that are required to move to other track levels. She however, points out that this practice goes against the commonly held belief that all students need to study the same things in school. In the case of students who have missed out on topics that might be relevant in their future educational opportunities, Oakes (1985) recommends that remediation should be carried out so as to provide equal access to all topics for all students. Oakes (1985) studied the variations in the content of tracked classes to find if students in the different tracks were being given access to knowledge that was going to guide them towards various levels in the socioeconomic ladder. She found that students in different tracks had access to different types of knowledge. She also found that these variations were not just equal weighted curricula that could be interchanged. Instead, they were variations that could have major repercussions for the futures of the students involved, for example, she noted that students in high-track English classes were being imparted with a sort of advanced knowledge. This advanced knowledge would be required of those going to join university and colleges. Low-track students, on the other hand, did not encounter these advanced types of knowledge, and for this reason were not expected to go the extra mile to acquire knowledge on the superfluous literary skills already did by their colleagues in high-track classes. Oakes (1985) notes that because of these major variations in the contents the students were learning, differences in the intellectual processes were also substantial. The teachers involved with high-track students reported that their students engaged in activities that demanded great cognitive power. Such activities include problem solving, drawing conclusions, critical thinking and making generalizations. She also states that the teachers in the low-track classes reported that their low-track classes required only the simplest memory tasks. This notion is also shared by Gamoran (1992). References Arum, Richard, Beattie R. Irenee, Ford, Karly. 2010. “From Theory to Practice.” Pp. 188-192 in The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education, edited by M. Hallinan. Pine Forge Press. Arum, Richard, Beattie R. Irenee, Ford, Karly. 2010. “Is Ability Grouping Equitable.” Pp. 193-197 in The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education, edited by A. Gamoran. Pine Forge Press. Arum, Richard, Beattie R. Irenee, Ford, Karly. 2010. “The Distribution of Knowledge.” Pp. 199-207 in The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education, edited by A. Gamoran. Pine Forge Press. Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 81. Read More