Is Tracking Unjust?

Argument: Tracking practices lump students into rigid ability groups that are disproportionate across racial and class lines, limiting opportunities for low-track students.

Student academic achievement levels are affected by economic and social inequities.

Education begins in the home, and children in upper-middle class houses have more opportunity to learn before the onset of school. Working-class parents have fewer resources to provide their children with a jump start on education. Students often enter the schooling system at different ability levels along class lines, and this discrepancy is only exacerbated by ability grouping.

“Heightened socioeconomic diversity at the school level is associated with more pronounced divisions in the curriculum” (Lucas, 1999).

Minorities are disproportionately represented in lower tracks.

Even accounting for differences in academic achievement, minority students are more likely to be placed in lower tracks. This means that two students at the same academic achievement level could be placed in different tracks because of the students’ race or other non-academic criteria. This indicates the nature of tracking as discriminatory, as well as low expectations for minority students.

“African American and Latino students were much less likely than white or Asian students with the same test scores to be placed in accelerated courses” (Oakes, 2005).

The assessments that determine track placement favor the dominant culture.

Assessments reflect the values of the dominant culture, so the actual achievement and skill levels of minority students may be underestimated. Intelligence tests and standardized tests have been criticized in the past as bias; teacher-created assessments used to measure student academic achievement may also be biased.

Tracking simplifies the various ability levels of students, thereby ignoring individual needs.

Grouping students of similar abilities together creates the illusion that children within an ability group all learn in a similar manner. Students within a track demonstrate a wide range of abilities, so it defeats the purpose to implement tracking policies in order to facilitate learning. Teachers would still have to “teach to the middle.”

Students are labeled according to their track, breeding dangerous stereotypes.

Low-track students are labeled as difficult to teach, disruptive and low-potential slow learners, so teachers and students may wrongly have low expectations for students in these tracks. High-track students are labeled as fun to teach, independent and high-potential, creating high expectations for gifted students and inflating the egos of some students. The disproportion of races and classes among the tracks lead many to wrongly correlate minority race or low class with low academic achievement.

“Black people who hang out with just black people tend not to do as well as white people. Since I hang out with both I think I do better than most black people” (Rubin, 2003). Quote by Mike, a black high school student.

Students identify highly with their track placement, polarizing the school population.

Students tend to stay within their track when creating social bonds, replicating social stratification in the schools. Students in different tracks are often either apathetic or hostile towards each other, and many conform to the stereotypes of their track. High-track students identify education as important, while low-track students often reject the culture of the school as foreign to their social groups. Furthermore, racial and class discrepancies among tracks lead to the social segregation of the school.

Students are often stuck within their track, for mobility between tracks is difficult.

Tracks are often formed in elementary school, and students who do not qualify for the high track often encounter difficulty in climbing the educational ladder. Low-track and general classes are taught at a slower pace than high-track classes, and elaborate prerequisites for entry into high-track classes often complicate a student’s attempts to move upward. The social climate of the schools further deters mobility, as students are reluctant to leave their comfortable social groups.

Low-track students are often unaware of how a low-track education limited future opportunities.

Even though many low-track and general-track students desire to attend college, many are actually enrolled in programs that will not satisfy the entry requirements for most four-year universities. Many students are poorly informed about the consequences of various class enrollments. Students in the low-track are basically funneled into the work force after high school, with little expectation for them to succeed in college.

“African American or Latino students were consistently overrepresented, while white and Asian students were consistently underrepresented, in low-ability tracks in all subjects” (Oakes, 2005).

Low-track students are often shortchanged a meaningful education.

High-track students have access to a student-oriented curriculum that aims to improve critical thinking and communication skills. The most experienced and effective teachers are reserved for these challenging classes, leaving the low-track students at a disadvantage. Low-track classes are often teacher-oriented, favor direct instruction and feature menial tasks that rarely improve student comprehension. This breeds an aura of resistance within the low-track classroom, leading to classroom management issues and alienating the students from the educational system.

“The expectations are different. [Teachers] would expect me to not do as well in class and stuff like that, and when people expect that of you you kind of do what they want in a sense because it really lowers your self-esteem to the point where you’re like, ‘I guess that’s all I can do’” (Rubin, 2003). Quote by Sasha, a high school student.

All students benefit from a demanding curriculum.

Granting only gifted students access to a meaningful curriculum is elitist and grossly unfair to other students. Low-track and general-track students are more than capable of critical thought and meaningful work. Detracked classrooms closely mirror high-track classrooms, and all students benefit from the high expectations of a challenging curriculum.