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.
