By Tamara
One of Mark’s recent posts discussed the struggle to balance the time and energy we invest in students-especially failing students versus average or high performing students. It left me asking, “And why is tracking such a bad thing?”
In our current “untracked” system (in quotes because we all know there is a shadow tracking system) everyone is getting a raw deal: the low achievers/SPED/ELL don’t get the full extent of the support they need, the high achievers don’t get the challenge they need, and the average Joes & Janes often just end up waiting out the clock. How is that equitable? It’s no news everyone learns differently, our students come to us with a whole spectrum of ability, background knowledge and baggage. So why this dysfunctional marriage to inclusive classrooms?
Wouldn’t tracks that actually addressed specific needs be the more equitable route? We do not have a homogenous society. A homogenous education is not going to create said society or in any way “level the playing field”. If anything it highlights and perpetuates our disparity. Hand-in-hand with social promotion…another issue….
Tracking does not have to mean differing qualities of education. The buzzword for years has been “Differentiated Instruction”. Why can’t tracking be that-taken to the next level? There are examples of other systems using tracking to offer high quality, rigorous education to best develop students abilities. Without social stigma, without a negative impact on the economy or quality of students’ lives when they graduate-what makes it so taboo for us?
To me, to group students by skill is simply more logical. Sure, there will always be variation, but minimizing the variation can enable a teacher to better focus and therefore respond to student needs more effectively.
I think skill based groupings could be done without having extremes in ages represnted. Which from a developmental standpoint would be a major deal breaker. Though you are right: we all know how much seniors enjoy being in freshman classes. It would be great place to start tinkering to enable a broader shift. We are only going to get past the social stigma and fear of the unknown factors by starting with small but successful changes.
I think that moving away from age-based groupings to skill-based groupings is one step toward making a more effective system. It won’t be popular to have a 14 year old and 9 year old in the same class because they are at the same reading level. I hear sometimes that having diverse skill groupings motivates the struggling learners to follow the example of the students who excel. I think a struggling learner would be just as motivated to not be in the same class as a student five years his junior.
It boils down to (a) perceived social stigma and (b) resistance to shift to a model of a classroom too different from the model the parents are familiar with (even if those parents still lambast the school for its failings, suggesting major overhauls are often resisted as too great a shift from the known model).