Kakia Johnson
Re-envisioning Education and Democracy
Public Intellectual Essay
April 26, 2002
CAN TEACHERS REACH EVERY KID?
What are the effects of separating public high school
students into classes based on skill level? One public school teacher says,
“[t]he distinction has created a very hard line for students who feel they are
honors students and those who are made to feel they are not honors students. We
have C students coming in to take an honors course simply because it’s honors,
and they don’t want to be in the [regular] group. They’ll say, ‘Those kids are
in the [regular] group. I don’t want to be with those kids’” (Claus 7). This
teacher is referring to a practice commonly called ‘tracking,’ which means
dividing students into school programs or classes based on how they have
performed thus far in school. Often this means remedial classes, regular
classes, and honors classes, or the vocational, general, and college-bound
tracks (Oakes 16). Two scholars, Richard S. Marsh and Mary Anne Raywid, point
out that students assigned to lower tracks often get the short end of the stick
in education. The best teachers, those who have high expectations and the most
training, are often assigned to the high ability tracks (Marsh 315). Less
favorable learning conditions lead to lower achievement among students in low
tracks (Evans 63). Since students in lower tracks receive a lower quality of
public education, people have begun to question the equity of tracking and
propose that we detrack America’s schools (Loveless 148). However, from the
perspective of a student in a high track, there is no need to reform the
system. Students in high tracks have access to the most resources and the best
education in public school. Keeping in mind the American value of equality that
helped found our nation and our schools, how should America structure public secondary
education to serve everyone?
People who are
served well by the current public education system might wonder why we ought to
educate everyone. Research suggests, however, that the majority of the American
public is dissatisfied with the current public school system (Mathews 1). As
society demands new modes of living, new challenges emerge. To survive and
prosper in the future, we will need as many bright thinkers with broad
perspectives as we can gather. The public education system can begin the process
of creating competent, motivated citizens who can contribute to the world.
Given the goal
of trying to effectively teach all public school students, the challenge in any
classroom is to not bore the students who learn quickly, but not leave behind the
students who are struggling. No matter the larger school structure in place,
every teacher faces a classroom with a variety of students. Educators,
psychologists, and researchers have concluded that we all think, learn, and
create in different ways (Tomlinson 18). Assuming we want all Americans to
learn the most they can during their years in public education, it makes sense
to account for differences in the ways people learn and the pace at which
people learn. This is the philosophy behind an approach to teaching called
‘differentiation,’ whereby teachers can adapt the material they teach and the
way they teach it to more closely fit the way each student learns best.
Educators have
attempted to account for both similarities and differences among students by
creating large organizing structures in public schools (Oakes 15). Schools fall
anywhere on a continuum from fully ‘tracked’ to fully ‘detracked.’ Totally
tracked schools consistently separate students into classes labeled high
ability, average ability, and low ability (Oakes 16). In tracked high schools,
students are placed in classes based on the following factors: (1) how they
have performed on achievement tests, (2) how much teachers think they have
already learned, (3) what teachers think they are capable of, and (4) what they
plan to do following graduation (Oakes 16). Totally detracked schools do not
use any of these measures to separate students, so all classrooms have the
broadest range of students possible. These classrooms are often referred to as
‘mixed ability’ or ‘heterogeneous’ classrooms.
The organizing
structures of schools, including tracking and mixed ability grouping, are
attempts to make the most of educational resources. Based on data from 1994,
tracking still occurs in the large majority- 80% or more- of American schools
(Marsh 315). Detracking schools has been the recent response to public
dissatisfaction with tracked schools. One large problem with tracking is that
the best teachers are often assigned to the higher tracks. Students in the
lower tracks thus receive lower quality instruction from teachers who expect
less of their students (Marsh 315). Students in the lower tracks receive less
substance in the content of their courses. Students in the lower tracks develop
less motivation and achieve less when they encounter low motivation among their
peers (Marsh 315). Since schools have traditionally been tracked, but some are
in the process of detracking, American public education today includes both
tracked and detracked schools (Loveless 150).
Critics of
tracking recognize the goal of educating everyone, not just the brightest
students in the top tracks. Strong advocates of social equity, like Jeannie
Oakes, suggest that detracking the schools will equalize educational opportunity
(28). This means having all classes of mixed ability, or heterogeneity. Other
reformers suggest that tracking can continue, and we ought to just focus on
improving the lower tracks. Yet another solution, which can accompany both
tracking and detracking, is differentiation. This requires teachers to
‘differentiate’ or vary their instruction within one class to adapt to the
needs of individual students.
It is useful to
understand how and why tracking began in the American public school system.
Nearly one hundred years ago, in the early part of the twentieth century,
schooling laws became more common, many new schools were being built, and large
numbers of immigrants and African Americans were entering the school system for
the first time (Oakes 15). Debates over how to organize this growing and
diverse body of students were heated. The practice of dividing students in more
homogenous groups based on ability, or tracking, emerged as the solution to
meeting the needs of all students (Oakes 15).
Tracking is a
form of structural differentiation, meaning that the actual position of
students between and within schools is determined by ability grouping. In some
cases certain schools within districts draw the brightest students, while lower
achieving students are sent to another school. In other cases, the school
houses students of varying abilities and students are tracked within the school
into classes with classmates of similar ability.
Theoretically,
it makes sense to group students with peers that are in approximately the same
place in their process of learning. The very fact that tracking developed as an
organizational strategy for schools is evidence that not all students learn at
the same rate or in the same way. Recent criticism of tracking appears to ask
two main questions: Is tracking serving its original purposes? And what should
our purposes be in education? Originally, the public school system in the
United States was set up to serve the American democracy- to prepare democratic
citizens who would protect their individual freedoms and engage in
self-government (McDonnell 1). American democracy is based on both freedom and
equality, and the public schools system was designed to serve our democratic
nation. Tracking was envisioned as the way to make education efficient and
effective for all students, while recognizing individual differences.
The recent
criticism of tracking stems from the fact that inherently it creates a status
hierarchy in the school system (Gamoran 387). Unequal distribution of instruction
across the hierarchy of tracks leads to achievement inequality (Gamoran 386).
Having some students labeled as less competent than others can reinforce the
view that some people are less smart and less worthy of education than others.
This could reproduce inequities outside the classroom (Gamoran 387). Adam
Gamoran and Matthew Weinstein published an article in 1998 outlining the
results of their study on tracking and mixed ability grouping in restructured
schools. The study looked at 24 restructured schools over the course of a year,
seeking to identify conditions that promote high quality teaching. All of the
“restructured” schools in the study engaged in site-based management, attempted
to integrate their curricula across subject areas, and were involved in some
sort of detracking effort (Gamoran 389). Scholars like Tom Loveless point out
the lack of extended research on the effects of tracking and detracking in
schools. The Gamoran and Weinstein study, for example, only looks at classrooms
for one year. The last study that randomly assigned students to ability grouped
and ungrouped classes was conducted in 1974 (Loveless 150). Other tracking
research focuses on small numbers of schools for a limited amount of time. The
small scale of tracking research limits the claims that scholars can make about
its effects on learning. But despite its limitations, the Gamoran and Weinstein
study can shed light on the tracking debate and give us insights on what future
research would be useful.
Gamoran and
Weinstein found that:
[I]ntellectual
rigor, commitment to equity, and the use of differentiation in a way that does
not contradict equity, are common ingredients in schools that provide
high-quality academic experiences for a broad range of students, irrespective
of the school’s structure… these conditions are probably more fundamental than
the school structure itself for promoting academic excellence and equity.
(410-11)
Overall, Gamoran
and Weinstein conclude that neither tracking nor detracking poses insurmountable
barriers to high quality instruction (410). At the same time, neither system
ensures high quality instruction either (Gamoran 410). In addition to the
tracked or detracked structure of a school, factors including class size,
funding, teacher leadership, control over which students and teachers are at
the school, and the amount of freedom the school has within its district all
influence quality of education (Gamoran 385). Based on this study, it would not
be effective to demand, for example, that all schools be detracked. Each
school’s eventual impact on its students depends on the circumstances
particular to that school.
What can
teachers do now, if they are uncertain which structure best suits their school?
Teachers can begin to reach more students by differentiating their instruction.
Even in tracked schools, ability groups are not always homogeneous (Gamoran
387). The range of students in any classroom offers teachers the chance to
adapt their teaching to meet each student where he or she is.
Differentiation
is a method of teaching that recognizes and draws upon differences between
students while promoting a high level of excellence for all students. It is
useful to nurture the different styles and strengths of each student in a
diverse class (Tomlinson 24). Rather than lecturing the class as though all
students are the same, appreciating student variety and varying instruction can
promote more learning. Evidence suggests that students learn more in a
differentiated classroom because it recognizes that people think, learn and
create in different ways (Tomlinson 18). Since each student brings different
natural abilities to the classroom, it makes sense to give each of them the
chance to both excel and struggle. Since there is a range of learners in every
classroom, tracked or untracked, differentiation is possible in tracked and
untracked schools.
Differentiation challenges the assumption that one lecture
directed at the entire class is the most effective way to teach.
Differentiation involves identifying groups of students within a class that are
working on a similar level, and using different materials and activities that
are appropriate for each group. This would appear to be tracking on a small
scale- dividing students into ability groups within the classroom. The
difference is that tracking inherently and permanently separates students,
dividing them into a hierarchy where the highest performing students are the
most valued and praised and the lowest performers are devalued. Differentiation
meets each student where he or she is, but also promotes interaction among all
the students (Tomlinson 12). In a differentiated classroom, students may work
in separate groups for a period of time, but then return to the class and all
share what they have worked on. Critics might say, isn’t this inefficient to
try and teach at multiple levels in one class? It does require strong teacher
commitment and more effort than standard instruction, but differentiation
really offers a better learning environment for kids. When students enter the
work force in the real world, they will have to collaborate with a number of
different people. Co-workers will have a variety of backgrounds, experiences,
strengths, and weaknesses that they bring to the job. It would be useful to teach
students how to work with people of varying abilities and styles in high school
to prepare them for future work in the real world.
How can teachers
begin to practice differentiation in their classrooms? Teachers will have to
build an understanding of what a differentiated class looks like. A great
starting resource for teachers is Carol Tomlinson’s book, The Differentiated
Classroom, Responding to the Needs of All Learners. There may also be
nearby schools that are effectively differentiating instruction. They could
serve as useful models. To start with, teachers can begin identifying the
different needs, strengths, and weaknesses of their students. Tomlinson
outlines three areas of instruction that teachers can modify: content, process,
and product (11). ‘Content’ is the actual material the teacher wants his or her
students to learn, and the materials through which that is accomplished.
‘Process’ refers to the activities or methods the teacher uses. ‘Products’ are
the endproducts of the class whereby students show what they’ve learned (such
as presentations or writing) (Tomlinson 11). In order to know how and what to
modify in their teaching, teachers must assess the position of their students.
Tomlinson points to three important ways that students differ: readiness,
interest, and learning profile (11). ‘Readiness’ refers to the entry position
(beginning, middle, advanced) of a student in relation to a particular
understanding or skill. ‘Interest’ is simply a student’s excitement or passion
about a particular subject. ‘Learning profile’ refers to the way that each
student learns most effectively (Tomlinson 11). For example, some students do
well to listen, write, work alone, work in groups, see specific examples, or
start with bigger principles. Tomlinson points out that you need not adjust all
of these elements at once or all the time. An effective differentiated
classroom uses traditional whole class learning some of the time as well
(Tomlinson 11).
Although some
scholars claim that there are clear-cut solutions that would improve schools
across the board, research from a variety of sources indicate that high quality
public education is complex. When making future policies on tracking and
ability grouping, it is wise to consider the advice of those who specialize in
this field. In 1999, Tom Loveless, a qualified researcher on the politics and
policies of educational reform, gave three suggestions for future tracking
policy. His suggestions stem from the fact that neither side of the debate- for
or against tracking- has a substantial body of evidence to support its claims.
First, he says that schools should decide policies (Loveless 148). As we have
established, a number of factors in addition to tracking influence the quality
of teaching in any given school. Teachers and principals are in the best
position to know what structure will work best for their students because they
know the actual students who attend their school. Second, Loveless says we
should improve tracked schools (149). Since the low tracks are often criticized
for not offering high quality instruction, we ought to focus on improving the
low tracks. Loveless points out that schools can locate nearby schools with
successful low tracks and model their own based on what already works (Loveless
149). Third, Loveless suggests that we learn more about untracked schools and
improve them (149). Since more schools are now untracked, there can be more
research done to see if they succeed in offering equitable, high-achievement
education (Loveless 150).
While the debate
over tracking in America’s public schools continues, teachers can improve their
instruction within the existing framework through differentiation. Teachers who
feel strongly about the distribution of students between or within schools
might investigate and question their own school system from their own inside
perspective. It is often difficult to find strong connections between academic
theory/research and real life situations. Students and teachers encounter real
challenges on a day to day basis which require action. Sometimes academics do
not recognize the logistical barriers that prevent immediate change in actual
schools. Ideally teachers can actually use information that researchers have
compiled about quality teaching practices. Ultimately, every policy decision is
played out by real students and teachers in real public schools. We must be
certain that policies work in practice, not just in theory.
Claus, Jeff.
“You Can’t Avoid the Politics: Lessons for Teacher Education from a Case Study
of Teacher-Initiated Tracking Reform.” Journal of Teacher Education 50
(Jan-Feb 1999): 5-16.
Evans, Cynthia.
“Access, Equity, and Intelligence: Another Look at Tracking.” English
Journal 84 (Dec 95): 63-5.
Gamoran, Adam
and Matthew Weinstein. “Differentiation and Opportunity in Restructured
Schools.” American Journal of Education 106 (May 1998): 385-415.
Loveless, Tom.
“Principles for Future Policy: The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate.” Educational
Horizons 77 (spring 1999): 148-50.
Marsh, Richard
S. and Mary Anne Raywid. “How to Make Detracking Work.” Phi Delta Kappan
76 (Dec 1994): 314-17.
Mathews, David. Is
There a Public for Public Schools? Dayton: Kettering Foundation Press,
1996.
McDonnell,
Lorraine M. “Defining Democratic Purposes.” Rediscovering the Democratic
Purposes of Education. Ed. McDonnell, Lorraine M., P. Michael Timpane, and
Roger Benjamin. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Oakes, Jeannie.
“Tracking: Beliefs, Practices and Consequences.” Social Issues and
Education: Challenge and Responsibility. Ed. Alex Molnar. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1987.
Tomlinson, Carol
Ann. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999.