As we move from race to class, we continue to examine how a structure of injustice forms. One of the ways to secure the structure is through particular practices in schools and in the educational process. For the most part, we (myself included) remain unconscious to the role we play within this structure. In our own process, then, of crafting new lenses and coming to a more critical consciousness, it will be important to explore some of the structural factors impinging on the lives of children in our schools in order to become the liberatory agents that Sleeter and others call for. One issue to take up is tracking.
In a previous edition to Affirming Diversity, Nieto outlined a rather famous study by John Goodlad and lamented, “Goodlad found that first- or second-grade children who are tracked by teacher’ judgments of reading and math ability or by testing are likely to remain in that track for the duration of their schooling. He also found that children of color and poor children in general are predominately at the lowest track levels and that they advance more slowly, develop problems of lower self-esteem, and have higher drop-out rates” (Nieto, 2ED., pg. 70). We might think also about Ray Rist's study in Chapter 4 regarding the kindergarten teacher who essentially had her children tracked by the 8th day of class.
My experience with tracking dates back to second grade. I transferred from a public school to a Catholic school and was placed in 2B (there was also a 2A and a 2C). I was placed in the middle track because they really weren't sure where to put me based on my public school experience. For whatever reason, my 2B teacher, Mrs. Berninger, saw fit that I should move to 3A the next year with two of my other 2B classmates. In the third grade, we could remain in 3A (and this went for all the students) if we could memorize our multiplication tables as quickly as our teacher, Mrs. Hood, thought necessary. Several kids did not make the cut and moved down to 3B. No one moved up from 3B, much less 3C. In fact, for the rest of my grade school experience, no one else ever moved up to the "A" track, solidified by how quickly one learned their multiplication tables (a very low-level of thinking ability, memorization, according to Bloom). This was an all-white, middle class school--students whose fate were sealed by perceived intelligence related to memorization. Now, enter Goodlad, Nieto, and Rist and factor in race and class. What we know is that some students are tracked by social factors, not silly little multiplication memorization--fates sealed at an early age based on the color of their skin or the neighborhood in which they grew up.
First, talk about your evolving understanding of the issue of tracking based on your reading of Chapter 5. While I advocated for the elimination of tracking at the school where I taught, based on a research study I completed which clearly demonstrated poorer students got tracked lower, my movement (not surprisingly) did not enjoy much support. Although I continue to work toward this from the outside looking in (at a structural level), I also believe there are more short term, individual, and pedagogical decisions that can be attended to given the inertia of this issue and the fact that it looks to be here to stay for a bit. In other words, since tracking is a current reality, and the revolution to eliminate it will be slow to come, what are some pedagogical decisions you can make as a teacher that may assuage some of the negative, long-term effects of tracking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As a teacher, I understand the reasoning for tracking (the reasoning we as teachers use to better serve our students). we know this isn't the case. Looking through Nieto, I also understand what tracking has become. Again, I have a very unique perspective being in a predominantly white school. Here, I see more of the class issue than the race issue. It does still exist.
I don't necessairly think we need to get rid of tracking altogether, but certainly to revamp the system. I don't believe we should be doing any tracking on the elementary school level. This is a good time to work on the multi-level teaching, the peer tutoring, the group work. As they move into the middle school level, we can begin assessing their aptitudes. By high school, they can start focusing on what they're good at (English was my thing, but others are good at math or science). We try to use our tracking effectively at BC. For example, I have placed lower level kids in my "advanced" English to help show them some of the thinking necessary to interpret texts. I've also had students in advanced English that would be in regular Algebra and so forth. We test our kids as they come in and we continually assess and move kids as we see necessary. We try to use our tracking to the students' benefit. In regards to retention, my only concern is that if we don't, how is it fair for me to teach high school students with a 3rd grade reading level?
But another point that was made in regards to tracking was the teachers. Supposedly as teachers have more experience, they move up in the ranks to get better classes and more advanced groups of students. If this is the case, do these teachers really become better or are they not required to keep evolving as teachers since the job gets "cushioned"?
My own experience with tracking pushed me into higher levels. I've had teachers who wanted me to skip grades (my mother never would let them, she wanted me socially on track). I was always in the higher levels and I remember a sense of superiority, but not necessarily over other student; it was an intrinsic sense of pride. But I also remember being in AP Calculus and AP chemistry thinking "I don't belong here." I barely managed a B in both classes, but it was stressful and very difficult. AP English and AP German were easy and natural, nothing shy of an A in either of these classes.
Beyond what my team is working on to improve/use tracking as best as we can, I think individual class decisions can help. My personal choice is creativity. I try to make my lessons dynamic (omg, please help with parts of speech!) and create a community with the writing. I think we need to make lessons flexible as well. I teach the same content to my advanced class as I do my regular classes. My advanced classes have the benefit of more discussion (they actually open their mouths). But activities and variety keep me alive. Passion in my subject helps too. I also believe in straying from the book. I like our texts because they align to our content (no brainer for me), but it gives me time to pull other stories and activities since I don't have to plan the basics. I like being creative and it is something almost every evaluation compliments me on. Can't wait to develop a curriculum that remains engaging, creative, and still covers the basic skills.
I don't think the immediate answer lies in detracking. I think it lies in honestly having creative and engaging teachers. As presented in the last class, kids perform when teachers care. And kids perform on the basic standardized testing. If we care and provide them with something to really engage in, can you just imagine the results?
Chapter 5 is interesting. Tracking is not working in our schools. We are not addressing the lower groups i.e income and racia makeup of all students and their desire to learn. Students state that education is boring and I tend to agree with them. Retention has no lingering effects the same groups or demograghics are dropping out and in out languish rates. Holding students back is not working. What is the answer? Standardized testing is futher holding our students back. I know for a fact that all students are not test takers. I myself have anxiety when someone says test. We need to address this problem as well as others that face our students. Linking test scores to schools just make to poor schools struggle all the more. As well as limiting teachers "creativity". Curriculum needs to be more understanding of others views in all areas. Involving families and the community to teach classes on diversity is important. Bringing in leaders of the community to show our students that race,gender and other ideas are all part of our culture can help this. But still it is looked down on in our schools.
I like the idea of decussing cultural values in the classroom and plan to incorporate this into the curriculum this year. I think that all teachers would benefit by understanding the religions other than our own. To acknowledge these differences can help control the climate of our classrooms. Yesterday another teacher told us about hand prints and how to incorporate them into the learning process. By bringing paints and letting the students mix colors to generate their culture and identity. Then write a short story to explain how this effects them to the class. I can see where this could address an understanding and bring the students to together. I really want to try this at the beginning of the year.
Finally caring about our all our students on an individual basis is really important. Through the understanding of where they are coming from is important. Not just to them but also to us. Making sure that their points of view are brought into the classroom will help all students to better understand the content that they are learning. The words that really made a difference to me in the writing were "Beeing DIfferent" and a "Balancing act". We must address this and deal with it daily.
I completely agree with Neito that placing students into groups according to their “perceived” abilities is entirely wrong. Especially when teachers never truly examine these groups to see if improvements have been made to move them up or down on a regular basis. I also agree that students should be placed into “flexible grouping” situations in the elementary and perhaps upper grades. Small group instruction works extremely well when you have found that a group of 4-6 students do not understand a certain concept you are teaching. These groups should be continually assessed with authentic assessment to see if the skill they are working on has been mastered. They are always changing, however! I realize this is different than your typical tracking of students. But, I am a firm believer in small group instruction.
I feel the best thing we can do with the situation of tracking is to be a true advocate for promoting diversity and sensitivity in the school where we teach. Teachers should discuss the negative aspects of the tracking that is taking place in their school with the staff and administrators. They should develop curriculum that activates and explores all student’s background knowledge and beliefs. Levin stated in the book “even the most marginalized students learn when education is meaningful to their lives.” Teachers should strive to hold high expectations for all groups of students that include pedagogy that motivates students to be constructive thinkers. They must conduct research on diverse topics and all cultures to better understand what to teach. Educators should also request more professional development sessions that train teachers where to find resources needed to reach all learners in their classrooms.
Most importantly, we should be a positive example of how caring people act. The world needs so much more of this. Teachers are role models that students often spend more time with than any other person in their lives. Modeling a caring, sensitive and respectful nature toward all cultures and economic backgrounds is key.
As a teacher I feel like tracking is something that you can’t get rid of all together. It is put in place to help us better meet the needs of our students. I do feel that some people get way to extreme about tracking and instead of looking at the individual child they look at the group they are mixed in with.
In my classroom I use tracking in one area and that is reading. However, my reading groups are constantly moving and changing, especially at the beginning and end of the year when the students are starting to show their reading abilities. The tracking in this case makes sense in our classroom because all the students in the group are reading the same level books and working on the same reading strategy. Plus, in first grade it provides consistency for the students because they know when they are going to group and what center they are going to as well. I do move the students around based upon their needs when necessary.
I have found this to be a positive affect in my classroom, especially for the students in my upper and lower reading groups. The lower reading groups strive to read the same books as the upper group. This may not be true for all, but in my classroom it has made the students of lower reading ability more motivated because they want to read the same books as their friends. I will often let my students with lower reading abilities read to those who have more advanced reading skills. This boosts the higher level students because they now become the helpers and the teachers to the other students. Plus, they always have nice comments to say once the other students have finished reading to them.
Reading is the only area in my classroom where I use tracking and group the kids by their ability. In math I use tracking, but not to the same extent. I will place a child with high math skills with a child who is struggling in math and allow them to work together to figure out the problem or to play the game.
I think that tracking in some areas is good because if a student is around someone of their own ability level then they feel confident in their abilities to complete a task and realize that there are others who struggle with the same ideas. If we always had students in mixed groups it may make others feel bad and would cause them to shut down, thus creating a bigger gap.
As an advocate for change we should talk to our colleagues and administrators about tracking and changing the way we look at the abilities of our students in our schools by looking at the individual student and their place in the classroom rather than their place in the whole institution of school (i.e. advanced, honors, etc…)
Indeed, this issue of tracking is a tricky one, isn't it? I like how Nieto and Bode distinguish between short term grouping and rigid ability tracking. For the discussion so far, it seems like you employ some flexibility with your grouping and/or have a fairly negative view of the rigid ability tracking as presented. I, of course, share this view and probably wonder like you how, if we can see the problematics of rigid ability tracking, why others don't. What keeps the system in place and shields its impact from the people who could do the most to change it? Another question that might help nuance the discussion includes, how do we gage'ability'? Are we talking stanines? Other standardized measures? Teacher's perceptions? IQ tests? Teacher tests? Long term growth? Snapshot? More provocatively, how do we define ability? Are we looking at intelligence narrowly or broadly?
Finally, what is the financial impact of this tracking system? If we know that placing a child in a lower track (or holding them back, for that matter) will cost them dearly, economically, later in life, as studies will show (and statistics will indicate relative to retention), can we conscientiously place a child in a lower track?
Is it better to be the top kid in the lowest class or an average kid in a higher class? This is a dilemma that faced one of my girls this year. As I mentioned in class we track at Highland and there are three levels AP, Honors and comprehensive. I don’t know the answer other than lowering class size. I think this would help with the tracking because then you could mix things up a bit in classes and have the students focus on their best abilities. In everything I read about cooperative learning it says to mix up the groups so you have both a high performer and a low performer in each group. Well what if that is all you have either high performers or low performers. The low performers never get to see that role model of a high performer and see how they think and work. And the best way to master something is to teach it, and we deprive that from our high performers.
I prefer blending to tracking but the biggest obstacle, like mentioned in the chapter is parents. They don’t value the social lessons that their children can learn from diversifying the classroom. Again I come back to smaller class sizes that can be subversively blended without as much obviousness. Granted there will probably be tracked smaller classes but then the needy kids can have more one on one instruction and excel. I think that most educational problems could be fixed with smaller class sizes, including the issue of multiculturalism, since the students would have more of a voice in the class.
I teach a primary grade level, and I was told to do tracking because of the school district that I teach in. My understanding of tracking is for the benefit of my students. It is my job to pin-point the areas that my students seem to lack. Once the area is pin-pointed then I, the teacher, can get to those students and provide the extra help they need. Whether the extra help comes from me re-teaching, providing a small group lesson, or involving another teacher-my responsibility is to reach out and help those students attain a goal. A goal most likely set for them by the district.
What I truely don't like about tracking is the fact that it can hurt students’ lives. When it is used to tell the future about each student and then students are put into groups and sorted by ability to determine who will be successful and who will not- then that's when I have a problem with tracking.
I believe tracking is mostly done through testing, and not everyone does well on tests. Testing is not for every student. ‘Nevertheless, how can we compare test results from students whose parents are available and able to provide additional tutoring for their child to those students who come from single parent homes that can barely supply food?’ For the issues out there that happen in this manner, we as teachers need to stand together and point out to ALL that the school system is failing because of the policies put in place for us to follow. I do believe that tracking has a lot of weeds that need to be pulled.
From a high school perspective, tracking is based on teacher selection (i.e. if one of my kids wants to be in advanced English next year, they must have my signature on their registration forms). I think this is part of the problem. When 30 advanced kids are sent to me, I'm trusting that their 8th grade teachers know what they're doing. however, I'm often finding that they don't or they don't care. We hear a lot that our kids don't work during their 8th grade year. "We test during 7th, so everyone pays attention to the 7th graders and ignore us." So, I think this is primarily why tracking stays in place; we place faith in the teachers that precede us and assume they have accurately measured the kids' abilities.
While I agree with Nieto and Bode that tracking can perpetuate inequality in our schools, I am not quite ready to say that there is no place in our schools for any ability grouping. I believe that the way it is being done flawed and should be critically evaluated.
Granted, I am facing this issue with great bias. Like many of my peers, I was one of the “high-achieving students [who] benefit[ed] from being tracked in honors, and high-level classes.” (p.120) From the first grade on I was in the high reading groups. I left my private school in the second grade because my teacher and parents agreed that there was not enough ability tracking in the private school setting and that I would do better in the advanced program at a public school. I stayed in public school advanced program classes until high school at which time it was OK to return to private school because Catholic high schools offer ability training.
While my parents definitely denied me some opportunities for diversity thorough their choices in my education, there is no doubt that I benefited from them. However, let me be clear – I do not believe that it is OK for some students to benefit at the expense of others. That being said, I have to say that I do see some benefit from ability tracking.
I wish I had the answer on how to remedy the problems associated with tracking, but I don’t. I do, however, have some beliefs about tracking. I believe that the rigid way students are tracked is wrong. It is wrong that students are placed in a certain track at a young age and are never given an opportunity to move. I disagree with programs that label students as honors, comprehensive, etc across the board instead of evaluating each student on individual subject areas.
I really look forward to talking with everyone in class tomorrow and getting everyone else’s takes on the subject. See you tomorrow.
In my classroom I usually put the kids in groups based upon what their teacher from the previous year says that they are. After a week or so of working with the children in groups and taking some anecdotal notes I begin to move the groups around based upon what their specific needs are and what level they are reading on. I then give the students benchmark books at the end of each level and move the groups around then as necessary. However, I do not base their score on what the paper says I tak into consideration how long it took them to develop an answer, etc... Overall, I feel like the grouping is based on assessments linked to the readings & teacher opinion about where the student is and how well they would do in a cetain group.
My understanding of tracking is placing students in groups according to their ability, achievement, or needs. Part of me thinks tracking is a bad idea because it singles out certain people or groups, and these people or groups are labeled for most of their lives with that “im low" label. That label follows them from year to year. My school I teach at does this. When they are creating class lists for the next year they label each student high, medium, or low. The one good thing about my school is that they equal everything out. One high student for one high student, one low student for one low student in each of the classes.
On the other hand, I believe tracking is needed. I believe tracking allows us to make sure certain students receive the extra help they need. In my school, a student who is labeled "im low" gets extra services throughout the year. They receive interventions that allow them to catch up with the other students. Most of the time, in my school, these intervention help the lower students. I teach special education so I really have not had to deal with tracking in my ten years of teaching. Most of the student I receive, 99 percent, or below grade level and need all the extra help they can receive.
This was a very hard topic for me to write about because as a teacher I know we should do the right thing by not tracking or place students in ability group but as a parent I want my child pushed to the extreme. I don’t want them not to be able to move to the next level because 12 students in her class didn’t understand the concept. I am sure I will called out in class on this one.
Post a Comment