Detracking Students in High School Science - A Case Study (Part 2 in series)

Guest authors - Jacquelyn Curran, Craig Gagnon, Leah Williams, and Kathryn Eilert from Middleton High School (synthesized and edited by me)

To begin, the educators at Middleton High School readily admit that they do not have all the answers. What they did (and do) want is more equitable and engaging science learning for ALL students. Thus, they changed their system and graciously shared a bit about that process for this article. 

In the early 90s, some freshmen took physical science and some “more advanced” learners were tracked into biology. So, some freshmen went through a course sequence of physical science, biology, and chemistry, while others tended to take biology, chemistry, and physics. Then, later in the 90s, they got rid of the option of different initial courses and all freshmen took biology. Engagement in physical science had been low. Students took life science in 6th grade, physical in 7th, and earth in 8th, so it also seemed more beneficial to get them into biology as freshmen. There were, however, still three levels of biology at this time, general, regular, and honors. 

Over time they found that the disparities in physical science versus biology were mirrored in the three biology tracks. Student performance, attendance, and behavior data noticeably varied across these tracks. When students were given the opportunity to essentially self-track into honors biology (originally, students needed to test in), most of the students who were ready to enter rich conversations and tackle deeper challenges were separated out from their peers. In that shift, students in the general and regular level biology courses lost role models, supportive peers, and collaborative learning opportunities. General biology, especially, held a makeup of students that was disproportionate to the natural proportions of our school population, which raised red flags. Specifically, students of color, students receiving special education services, and male students were significantly more likely to be in that course. Furthermore, the classroom environment there was often not positive.

In 2011, the biology teachers, with the blessing of the administration, made the decision to integrate their biology courses. Chemistry followed soon after, as they eliminated the ChemCom, (regular) Chemistry, and Honors options. Honors became an embedded option that was open to any student, requiring further, structured work beyond the classroom curriculum. Physics continued to keep two separate courses, “Math Physics,” which was the rebranded honors physics, and Conceptual Physics. Physics was, and continues to be, a “recommended” 11th grade course, so students can take other electives instead.

In terms of meeting the needs of learners in a one classroom setting, the Middleton educators admit that it can be challenging. They have several sections that are co-taught with special education teachers, to support those students and try to keep proportions closer to the overall school ratios. There are also five main levels of differentiation that happen: honors/extension, a regular/base curriculum, a single level modification (with scaffolds), a double level modification with paired-back learning outcomes, and a triple level modification for students accessing a more tangential curriculum. They have consistently been evolving and working to improve these supports and noted that the work is never really finished. All of their “regular” education science teachers contribute to creating all levels of curriculum, as do their special education teachers. They feel that their core curriculum, while not perfect, has a strong foundational structure.

Within differentiation they work hard to provide a challenging, rigorous curriculum based on the NGSS and Ambitious Science Teaching principles to every student. Students who struggle with reading and writing can be really great at making observations, asking questions, and carrying out experiments. They can make connections among separate pieces of information. Having peers to model certain behaviors in class really helps. Reading and writing support comes through modifications, assistive supports (like Snap N Read), and co-teaching partnerships. Special education co-teachers are seen as teachers and act fully as teachers for all students in their co-taught classroom spaces. 

Most "honors" level students are already challenged by the regular curriculum; however, if they choose, they can work on honors extension activities for the unit. These activities are currently based on topics needed in AP Biology or Chemistry classes and serve as extra foreshadowing for that content. Honors students currently answer honors questions on assessment to show understanding. They also run honors labs at times, either in class or during the all-school resource period, which happens every other day. 

Discussing this work, teachers say:

        “I enjoy teaching in an inclusive classroom because we see students of all ability levels, personalities, and more come together to reach a common goal in the classroom. We get to teach and then learn how students work together and become accepting and eventually allies of all students.”

        “I love my classrooms. The personalities make the community so much better. You can have one student who knows so much science helping another student that struggles with content, but they are teaching the first student how to relax, laugh, and work with others. It’s not homogenous and neither is the real world.”

In the end, Middleton educators want to emphasize that it has been YEARS of work and continues to evolve. That is probably one of the biggest messages - take the leap and keep moving forward. It is the right work for students!

You can find further details of their story, examples of classroom modifications and differentiation, and their contact information in the slides from their 2024 WSST conference presentation: bit.ly/4aLryBC.

Why is Tracking Students a Problem? (Part 1 in a series)

                Three experiences in my life stand out in my personal pathway to discouraging schools from tracking students into different levels of classes (such as “honors” vs. “regular”). In conjunction with reflecting on these experiences, I’ve also dug through the research on tracking – turns out it doesn’t support typical school and district practices either.

               I had the opportunity several years ago to support a curriculum review process at a mid-sized Wisconsin school district. In observing high school science classes and talking with the teachers, I saw the core materials for freshman biology were a series of packets developed by the teachers. Through further discussion, they let me know that honors biology did not use those same materials. They did much more inquiry work in the honors class, but “didn’t have time for it” in regular biology. 

               In another mid-sized school district more recently, they wanted my help in revamping their high school science courses. They acknowledged that they had three levels of biology, chemistry, and physics – consumer, regular, and honors. They made the claim that it was not tracking because students could choose which level they wanted to take, with no prerequisites; however, when looking at the data, they acknowledged that their honors classes were much more likely to be white and Asian students, while their consumer level classes were much more likely to be students of color and students receiving special education services.

               Finally, while not a science example, my son had solid math skills in kindergarten and liked math. We supported math learning at home, and he was clearly at grade level, likely a little beyond. In first grade, the school split students into an advanced math class or regular math. My son knew he didn’t get in the “smart” math class. We pushed on that decision a couple times and were told he just didn’t quite meet the criteria. While we could’ve used our white privilege to get extra support and get him in that class eventually, we made the hard decision to let it go. By the end of second grade, he did not like math anymore and did not feel like he was good at it.

               These examples are repeated over and over across the state, country, and world. They’re not isolated incidents, and if not the exact thing, then something similar is likely happening in your school district. Therefore, the Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction have boldly stated, “Tracked course pathways should be eliminated. All students deserve access to rigorous courses and high standards, so they must be provided with the support needed to be successful in those courses.” It’s hard, but important, to realize that tracking hurts kids. Experience and research show that again and again.

               Let’s look at some research-based evidence. Based on a meta-analysis of dozens of studies, Terrin an Triventi (2023) did not find tracking correlated to higher achievement, but did find it correlated with unequal opportunities. In fact, “tracking is one of the primary mistakes that schools make if they hope to close achievement gaps” (Mathis, 2013). Additionally, underrepresented students are more likely to be placed in lower level classes (Connolly, et. al., 2019). Tracking not only limits opportunities for more rigorous classwork with higher expectations, it also appears to impact students’ self-perceptions, beliefs, and goals (Legette, 2020). Admittedly, you can find research with mixed results (not clear results) for the effect of tracking on the achievement of “higher level” students, but the impact of getting stuck in that lower track is much clearer.

               So, “How do we change this pervasive and well-entrenched part of our school system?” you might ask. In the next article of this series of tracking, I’ll be joined by teachers from the Middleton Cross Plains Area School District who will share their work to detrack freshman biology and sophomore chemistry.