Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Unit Three: Making Connections - Coggle Diagram
Unit Three: Making Connections
Tracking
Based on a flawed theory, little evidence of effectiveness
Why Track?
The Resurgence of Ability Grouping and Persistence of Tracking
Teachers say they find it difficult to teach classes of students with high heterogeneity in ability level
Technology
ore and more teachers using web-based instruction modes for students who are falling through the cracks
Teachers see it as convenient – easier to teach a more evenly-abled group
What is it?
Academic future decided by:
Test results
Arbitrary/subjective factors
Lower tracks = lower expectations + worse teachers → students running fast but falling behind
Gap widens over time
Premise: children are different enough to be divided into groups for instruction
Ignores other ways in which children are diverse individuals
Detracking
Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., & Jones, M. (1997).
Detracking: The Social Construction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform.
Detracking is caught up in a plethora of different hierarchical values (race, class, intelligence, merit, ability), which is what makes it so hard to uproot.
Concepts of ability and intelligence
Ability Grouping, tracking, and grouping alternatives
Well meaning belief that instruction should be hyper-targeted to each student
Pressure from advocates of high-achieving children
Belief that certain races/cultures value education less, and thus the students of that race or culture perform less successfully
Communities of color have educated themselves despite educational debt
Student Tracking Needs to End
Tracking created so that 40% were skilled, 60% were farm/factory workers
US is evolving, but education system isn’t
"Is Ability Grouping Equitable?"
(Gamoran, A., 1992)
“With low-group losses offsetting high-group gains, the effects on productivity were about zero, but the impact on inequality was substantial.”
Although the research is not definitive, it does suggest two actions: reduce the use of tracking and grouping and improve the way ability grouping is used where it is retained.
Because school performance is related to social inequality outside the school, such divisions contribute to the separation of students from different racial, ethnic, and social backgrounds
History and Segregation
The Resurgence of Ability Grouping and Persistence of Tracking
Mentions in education peaked in 90s → most controversial point
Now, it has fallen off in mentions
As spotlight was removed, teachers feel free again to use it
Influence of No Child Left Behind – 2000s, especially in fourth grade
Told schools to focus on low-performing children and treat them differently if necessary
From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools (Ladson-Billings, G., (2006)
26 points between Black and Latino/a fourth graders and white ones in reading, 20 in math
Other places where the gap is seen
Dropout rates
AP exam/honors course demographics
college admission rates
Cultural deficit theories argued that it was a cultural issue (undervaluing of school etc.)
“Kill the Indian to save the man”
Goal was not education, but assimilation
Challenges to Tracking
Research
Little evidence that it makes easier to teach a variety of ability levels
Does not improve educational experiences and outcomes for children of all levels
Grouping on one characteristic --> ignore a huge variety of other aspects of students identities
Creates false homogeny, reduces students to strictly selective traits
Ability Grouping, tracking, and grouping alternatives
Heterogeneous grouping → instructional balance, more sound reasoning/thought behind separations
Good test: if children were separated by performance and thus also separated by ethnicity/income/etc.
Flexible grouping: requires teachers to monitor group placement and dynamism → make sure that skill-based groupings are changing and growing
