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.

Making Room for Creativity in Science Class

How many times have you had a student ask, “Will this be on the test?” I often did as a teacher. They fully expect the test questions to have one right answer, and I would often give them those answers over the course of a unit. Students might have to plug in different numbers, but there wasn’t a ton of critical thinking in the end.

I have wondered, “How could I have made more room for creativity in my science class?” I have a few ideas and welcome yours in the comments!

First, create a culture where students ask questions. When considering student questions, I think teachers worry about tangents that will distract from concepts they “need” to cover. At least, I worried about that. In my experience, when a unit focuses on students figuring out a key phenomenon, the questions they ask tend to be naturally answered in the planned unit anyway. The students, however, at least had a chance at creativity when asking them, and they buy in as they see them answered. For questions that aren’t part of the unit, let students go on a research tangent or test different variables, and give them credit for doing so. Of course, that sounds a bit like project-based learning, which is an obvious pathway here too and enables students to research/experiment based on their own interests. While I didn’t connect them as well I could have to their learning, I honestly loved crazy questions from students, so I appreciate the work of Randall Munroe in xkcd with "what if" questions like, “What if I had a mole of moles?”

Second, find ways to get rid of one right answer tasks. I thought web searches were going to destroy these questions, but now I see that AI is going to obliterate them. Teachers tell me they need to know whether students know definitions. The challenge is that they don’t remember them anyway. I had amazing students who would come back the next school year, and I’d ask, “What’s a proton?” They seriously had no idea. Testing definitions is pointless in the long run, and even in the short term, students often hide behind an illusion of understanding by being able to spout the right terms. They have to be asked to apply ideas to their worlds, to things that they’re interested in, and to current contexts. Plugging numbers into formulas is similarly problematic. Testing on conceptual understanding of what a formula means and how it’s used requires more critical thinking (and is more likely to support remembering it). To help make this change, students could even create the tasks (or questions) that they find meaningful.

Third, push for originality in scientific modeling. Modeling can also become a process of looking for what the teacher wants, but that defeats the whole purpose of modeling! We want students to make connections among ideas in their world and through the lens of their background understanding, not replicate diagrams from a book. In a workshop, I have used a phenomenon of cup phones several times and asked educators to model how they work, as well as why they work sometimes and not others. Once a teacher took the blank paper I handed out and folded it up like an accordion. When asked to share her model, she showed the folds bumping into each other and transferring energy. Brilliant! If I had specifically asked them to draw something or given a starting diagram to add to, I never would have seen that creativity shine.

Notably, I supported a research project where we asked students in grades K-8 to make a model of blowing a crumpled-up piece of paper across a desk. Younger students were more likely to include themselves in their model. Some 8th graders did too, but they were more likely to only draw a mouth or maybe a mouth to lungs system. We interpreted that as younger kids being more likely to see themselves as part of the scientific process, while older kids abstracted science to something outside of who they are. We should encourage kids to make the models personally relevant, meaning giving them phenomena where that will be possible, rather than stressing a system that doesn’t include them in the picture.

Finally, celebrate your students’ ideas! Whenever they get excited, get excited with them, even if it’s hard to do. I had a student who was excited to bring in articles that argued against human-caused climate change. It tended to make me grumpy, as they didn’t represent quality science. But, he wanted to talk science! I really should have celebrated his interest in pursuing science topics outside of school. I should have called my excitement out to the class! Because that’s what science should be, full of wonder and questions and creative expression, even in the face of the competing priorities and obligations of being a teacher.

Cultivating Genius: Adapting Lessons to Bring Out the Genius in All Students

I have a hard time connecting with some frameworks for equity-based teaching. Often, that’s because they don’t connect as well as I’d like to science teaching. The Cultivating Genius Framework from Dr. Gholdy Muhammad, on the other hand, provides a simple tool to reflect on lesson and unit design.

Her framework includes the following 5 elements, and I note how they’d work within science:

• Intellect: the disciplinary core ideas of science (DCIs) and ways of thinking of science (i.e., CCCs)
• Skills: the science and engineering practices (SEPs)
• Identity: connections to students’ interests and cultures, current events, and local contexts (some ideas in Appendix A of the WI Science Standards).
• Criticality: how is this science going to help change our community and the broader world?
• Joy: linking to the beauty and wonder of science, as well as the collaborative nature of it

So, what might this look like in practice to adapt existing materials? Let’s start from some high-quality and free materials, OpenSciEd, specifically the 7th grade unit on matter cycling and photosynthesis – “Where does our food come from and where does it go next?” In this unit students explore the growth of plants, creation of food, and decomposition of food materials.

Applying Dr. Muhammad’s framework:

This unit already effectively brings in the 3 dimensions of the WSS/NGSS = intellect and skills. Students develop a strong conceptual understanding of these topics and do science.

    Identity: The lesson starts out with maple syrup and students watch a video of tapping a maple tree. Instead, classes could go out and actually tap trees to connect to their local environment and native understanding of ecosystems and science, specifically noting the cultural connections. 

    Criticality: Later in the unit, students grow plants hydroponically. They could connect this work to growing healthy food for the school cafeteria (and eating it!) and consider issues such as the impact of food deserts in communities and over-consumption of processed foods.

    Joy: Students could take a walk in a local forest or other ecosystem to observe plant growth and decomposition. If the environment is a nearby local forest, they might do multiple measurements over time in the spring when plants are growing like crazy. A teacher could also add a group project related to local plants, food, decomposers, etc. that benefits a local food pantry.

There are so many possibilities for making our lessons better connect to the identity, joy, and critical perspectives of our students! The challenge, of course, is time. Like always, I’ll emphasize that it’s better to engage students deeply in their world than it is to cover more content. They will remember the ideas better and be able to better apply them to new situations. Their scientific literacy will also increase. If we want students to find joy in learning and be careful consumers of the (mis)information overload around them, some coverage must give way to more opportunities for locally-connected critical thinking.

Are Today's Students Actually Different?

In my role in state science leadership, I often end up hearing from educators that the students right now are different than before. I have especially heard that as we’ve gone back to school during this COVID era, but frustration aimed at cell phones and social media has been around for a while. Notably, I also heard these sentiments from several educators when I first started teaching 23 years ago. “Kids have changed from when I first started teaching…They’re not as ______ as they used to be.”

I sometimes wonder if those perceived changes are reflections of changes in society in general more so than children being inherently different now.

I have a few concerns with focusing on perceived “changes” in children:

First, it’s an easy excuse. It shifts the onus of responsibility away from educational systems and educators, and instead focuses on children. It becomes part of the ongoing blame game in education. It would be helpful to change how we frame our analyses. For example, instead of saying, “Only 30% of our students are proficient,” we ought to note that our instructional system and curriculum only meet the needs of 30% of our students.

Second, it can be conflated with changing demographics. I taught in California in a district that went from about 70% white to 20% white in the 20 years before I started there. We all have implicit biases; lots of evidence points to that. So, when we say students are different, their demographics are sometimes quite different, and we can come off as suggesting that that is the underlying problem, even if unintended.

Third, children are amazing, creative, and bring a fresh new lens on the world around them. That’s what we need to emphasize.

Some instructional shifts might help, but I think that’s always been the case. For example:

First, yes, there are real issues with social media, internet-connected phones, etc. Cell phones turn most of us (adults too) into screen-addicted zombies. That includes me (I’m working on it). Social media usage is linked to self-esteem issues in children. I’d hypothesize that social media and excess screen time are linked to mental health issues for people of all ages. I would suggest rules and a culture that gets rid of phones in general during school day – not in the bag, not in a pocket. It would take serious time and effort, but it would give children some time to be away from those addictive platforms. We could model that behavior as educators (your family can call the school if there’s an emergency, and the front desk staff can contact you). Admittedly, students need to develop healthy habits with phones and use the internet for good. Using computers on a structured basis can support those goals. Perhaps there is real research that show most kids having phones will keep them safer in an emergency – if so, that should be considered, but I haven’t seen it yet (science is about evidence, not random anecdotes).

Second, if they can Google the answer, that’s the type of pedagogy that has needed to change for a long time. It’s even more critical now. Content-focused instruction has never been motivational for most kids, and according to repeated research, students quickly forget the details from that type of learning. Any DOK 1 or 2 learning can be effective when embedded within community connections, local phenomena exploration, and meaningful problem solving, but it shouldn’t be the focus. Kids have never been excited about memorizing the periodic table or the stages of mitosis! Applying understanding means connecting it to real issues, jobs, challenges, changes in the local community; it is not giving some fake context on a test to make stoichiometry (etc.) appear like it has “real-world” value. Students should be learning to make sense of the world around them, not be fed pre-packaged understanding.

In the end, are students different? Probably a bit. Society is different. But, that 13-year-old is still a lot like the 13-year-old from 50 years ago with similar core needs and wants. Let’s work together to help them find joy and wonder in the world around them!

What Is “Student-Centered” Instruction?

To begin, if there is one right answer to a task, it’s not student-centered. It’s students figuring out the answer the teacher wants. True, that might be the “scientifically accurate” answer to a problem, but it leads to students being dependent on the teacher (or another outside source) for telling them what is correct and what is not. It leads students directly to the sense that the teacher, textbook, or website are the knowers and creators of science, not the students. We want students to grow in their identity as scientists by becoming scientific knowledge creators themselves! That’s the key to student-centered instruction.

So, does that mean learning shouldn’t involve problems with only one right answer. No, but there should be many fewer than they typical classroom includes. And, when they happen, they should be in the larger context of student sensemaking and creation. The foundation of the Wisconsin Science Standards (and NGSS) is that students should use scientific practices, ways of thinking, and content to make sense of phenomena and solve problems. So, if there are single answer problems or questions, such as a limiting reagent in chemistry or the speed of a cart in physical science, they should be included specifically so that students can then use that understanding to make sense of or solve problems within a larger context, not be an end in themselves.

Learning targets and assessments should then have this student-centered focus as well and not stagnate in lower cognitive levels. For example, I would not have an objective that says, “I can describe an ecosystem.” Instead, I might have one that says, “I can explain with evidence how changing environmental factors can affect some species of bats more than others” (for reference, here’s a unit outline for learning related to that target). I might then break that down into success criteria for students, such as, “I can: 1) use my understanding of ecosystems to explain why changes in particular aspects of them matter for bats; and 2) use my understanding of structures and functions of different bat species to explain why some bats will be more affected by those ecosystem changes than others.” Therefore, students are using an understanding of ecosystems for learning in a context of Wisconsin bat populations--specifically building toward making sense of decreasing bat populations due to various causes including white nose syndrome, and then determining what to do about it.

In this unit example, assessment should also involve sensemaking/problem-solving and questions that do not have one right answer. The assessments should reflect the 3D instruction. They could include:

1. Modeling a bat ecosystem and using evidence to show how it might change with a new environmental pollutant or other ecosystem change; 
2. Writing a letter to a local politician describing the bat population problem, why it’s important, and possible solutions; 
3. Designing and physically building a locally adapted product to help bat populations, like a bat house tailored to a local species of bat; 
4. Developing an evidence-based explanation in relation to the success criteria--see sample bat ecosystems explanations rubric.

Notably, students will be using their own research, investigation results, and a variety of data to make these assessment products their own. In particular, writing an explanation (CER if you use that) should not be a reading comprehension exercise.

In the end, the goal is for students to do science that is directly meaningful in their lives and community—to engage in learning that builds up their scientific identity, not reinforces their proclivity to want the teacher to tell them what the “right” answer is.

Reframing the Discussion on “Learning Loss”

When students were asked to discuss “learning loss” for a recent article, one talked about school during COVID, saying, “I lost time I could have been enjoying my childhood.” I think that is a profound statement on where students are at right now. While it is clear that some typical school learning did not happen to the same extent through the past 11 months, I would like to reframe how we look at the learning that did happen and learning goals moving forward. 

I argue that the primary focus of schooling should not be to push students toward artificial learning benchmarks at the expense of “enjoying their childhood.” We need a focus on helping students first develop a love for learning. We need a focus on what they can do, not on whether there is a small change in a test score-based trajectory. Using a packaged program that raises their score 5 points on a standardized test is not worth it if it destroys a child’s engagement in school. And, we have lost that truth when the primary focus is on “learning loss.” Schooling at its best allows for students to find their identity and their passions. And, it helps them see that they are loved. That should be a major lesson of COVID-19.

Therefore, we need to focus on meaningful learning opportunities for all students, not a deficit- and remediation-minded emphasis on making up for lost time. Post-COVID student support requires very careful and thoughtful approaches for several reasons:

• Standardized test scores in mathematics and literacy have been relatively flat for at least the last decade and achievement gaps are not closing. Putting more time into these subjects and doing more of the same has not and will not fix that problem. Admittedly, these types of tests provide limited information about the full range of important student learning, but they are a useful barometer, particularly in relation to equity.
• Research shows that science learning supports literacy learning, but it has seen an ongoing deprioritization, especially at the elementary level. Literacy learning consistently receives a larger share of the limited time available.
• Like mathematics learning, science should be about giving students opportunities to collaboratively figure out interesting problems and phenomena, not memorize facts. STEM learning broadly should be about empowering students to make a difference in their community, with the ability to see where that’s possible.
• We need to move beyond only the “What Works Clearinghouse” of programs, often based on biased studies. As noted above, we have seen little overall impact on achievement gaps, but we have also realized that they exacerbate the opportunity gap. I taught in a school where students were taken out of engaging elective courses (like STEM) and placed in front of a computer for extra reading learning. Thus, they lost key elements of school that motivated them to attend. We must unravel the structures that inhibit joyful learning.
• A deficit focus on students who have not “learned” as much as others has historically led to tracking. Tracking needs to be dismantled, not further entrenched through new post-COVID strategies. Remediation, as has been seen in post-secondary education, is rarely the best answer. School systems need to strive for renewal- and asset-based support, as framed by this Nebraska model.

Instead of a focus on more of the same strategies to support students, we need to emphasize enriched learning for all. We need to get students engaged through meaningful connections to their community and their lived experience. For example, teachers can have them build literacy skills while gaining empowerment through exploring a unit on health equity and COVID-19.

As Dr. Bettina Love, the inspiration of several parts of this article, says, we need to focus more on joy – celebrating that we made it through COVID and dreaming of what can be – not get stuck back in the way things have always been done.