- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,469
- 24,292
- 2,180
Tracking is a topic that gets a lot of people worked up. The following link and quote are not my words or necessarily my position on the topic. Just food for thought.
www.educationworld.com
"When “tracking” is discussed in a modern forum, the overwhelming repercussions of past mistakes tend to dominate the dialogue. At the beginning of the 20th century, the increase in industrial jobs started demanding skills and concepts well beyond those of 8th grade. More students remained in high school, and many struggled with the rigor of these expectations. Eventually, schools began grouping students into these “tracks”, based on the jobs they wished to pursue: rigorous courses for those on a more academic track, more basic life skills for students with their eyes set on lower-skilled work. Sadly, this system was quickly utilized to enforce internal segregation, sexism, and systemic racism, as many immigrant children, children of color, and women were not allowed or encouraged to pursue the college prep tracks. On top of that, a huge worry of the critics of tracking is that once a student is placed in a particular track, there is little-to-no opportunity for them to test out of the track. Once designated as “low achieving”, you remain there, despite any progress. These terrible practices have sparked a number of Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and a general (and very well-justified) distaste and outright hostility when the topic is broached.*"
A very common (and often vexing) challenge in any classroom is the fact that no matter how you slice it, not all students in any class are going to be of the exact same academic and/or ability level regardless of age or grade. It seems to be one of those issues that are always "worked on" but never "solved."
Revisiting Tracking | Education World
This is going to be a divisive one. And for good reason. But I want to talk about tracking in schools.
"When “tracking” is discussed in a modern forum, the overwhelming repercussions of past mistakes tend to dominate the dialogue. At the beginning of the 20th century, the increase in industrial jobs started demanding skills and concepts well beyond those of 8th grade. More students remained in high school, and many struggled with the rigor of these expectations. Eventually, schools began grouping students into these “tracks”, based on the jobs they wished to pursue: rigorous courses for those on a more academic track, more basic life skills for students with their eyes set on lower-skilled work. Sadly, this system was quickly utilized to enforce internal segregation, sexism, and systemic racism, as many immigrant children, children of color, and women were not allowed or encouraged to pursue the college prep tracks. On top of that, a huge worry of the critics of tracking is that once a student is placed in a particular track, there is little-to-no opportunity for them to test out of the track. Once designated as “low achieving”, you remain there, despite any progress. These terrible practices have sparked a number of Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and a general (and very well-justified) distaste and outright hostility when the topic is broached.*"
A very common (and often vexing) challenge in any classroom is the fact that no matter how you slice it, not all students in any class are going to be of the exact same academic and/or ability level regardless of age or grade. It seems to be one of those issues that are always "worked on" but never "solved."
