Disadvantages of Taking in Schools

Tracking: The Ailments of an Academic Labeling System
Tracking is a vestige of an American society when there was once a high influx of immigrant children and a dramatic increase in enrollment numbers. It had been used in American schools, along with other overseas countries for various reasons, as a mechanism to sort children viewed as having limited preparation or capacity for schooling from native children. It was needed to organize a coherent curriculum system that eventually was formed into a pyramidal, hierarchal base to befit the changing economy. However, tracking foundational principles has lost a lot of its accommodating appeals as students and their aspirations become more versatile in an economy demanding various kinds of workers. Once before, tracking offered a universal way of organizing the grade levels according to age and content mastery up until a certain grade level, usually eight; however, in the 21st century with a burgeoning, diverse economy academic uniformity and rigid curriculum segregation into distinct classes has become a more counteractive practice. Tracking is an ideal sorting mechanism to categorize students according to their intellectual aptitude; however, by using this academic label system it changes the dynamics of student-teacher relationship, creates hindrances towards gaining the full opportunities to learn and access of knowledge by all, and derails the categorized “low-performing students” likelihood of being admitted into reputable post-secondary institutions. By identifying students publicly and openly according to their intellectual aptitudes and accomplishments, the hierarchal separation system to “facilitate instruction” operates counteractively against forming successful, healthy relationships between students and their teachers. Starting as early as middle school when students are implicitly labeled as either part of the “advanced”, “average”, or “low” academic achievement group, they are placed in a susceptible situation of either favorable or inauspicious circumstances because of the predictable characteristics teachers tend to attach to a particular course-level class (Oakes, 3). With these ascribed traits, students become globally identified and valued in terms of the group they are a part of. Students in high-achieving groups are seen to possess favorable depictions as “bright, smart, the best and top students”—overall good students and their value at the school are clear.
However, students in slow-achieving groups suffer from identifications as “slow, disabled people”; further epithets include “dummies, sweathogs, and yahoos” (Molnar, 17).
Every child has a different relationship with their teacher because of individual characteristics beyond their intellectual capacity and other academic traits, such as personality, but when these temperamental qualities are overlooked because of labeling and there’s an imbalance of treatment towards certain students, tracking fails. “Above-average” students have been shown to share a more amicable relationship with both their peers and teachers mainly because for the majority of their academic career they have been encouraged to seek challenging tasks, received praise for their excelling grades, which is of course well-deserved. On the other hand, low-achievement students can sometimes receive teachers who are less patient and easily frustrating as they attempt to explain certain concepts to a student who takes longer to grasp it. This may be mainly due to the preferences held by most teachers in deciding whether they want to teach advanced/honors classes or those that require more attention and instruction, thus creating a difference in teacher attitude. Certain negative teacher attitudes due to a discontent placement into a lower-track class can be linked to the fact tracking often “leads to unequal educational opportunities by distributing formal and informal educational resources unequally to different students, especially in the quality of teachers…This is a result of many school districts letting the teachers with seniority choose the tracks they wish to teach; many, if not most, wish to teach the higher tracks for the reason that they are not very challenging to teach” (Braddock and Dawkins, 325). This seniority system, shuns the less-experienced teachers to inadequately be forced into classes with student learning complexities that they aren’t accustomed to. It’s understandable that novice teachers may become frustrated due to their inexperience, but when it affects the dynamics of the student-to-teacher relationship negatively, the low-average student feels discouraged and reciprocates the frustration, and sometimes even refuses to do the assignment, thus changing the entire learning atmosphere. These certain attitudes can become longitudinal as a student progress from one grade to another; and either for better or worse, it may enrich their learning experience or make school a detestable, forced obligation. These inequitable treatments have been clearly shown at West Bank Neighborhood High, a diverse neighborhood Minneapolis public school that practices tracking, as teachers and administrators have been documented showing favoritism particularly in the form of discrimination against poor-performing students. Multiple students attest that teachers in the categorical “low-performing” tracked classes don’t teach, refuse to help students that require help (often accompanied by ridicule of those that ask for help), do not control their class, curse at students, lose control of themselves, and lie about it later to other teachers and administrators (Lauria, 78). One female student in an average-track class witnessed preferential treatment firsthand:
“We might have on smart African-American student and one who is not as smart as the other, and the teacher would look at the smartest and say, ‘well I like you,’ or treat them better…and the one that’s slower, she just overlook them...the one that’s slower might be more eager to learn, but she look over them. And she’ll say something like, ‘I have my degree. You have to get yours.’ If the child do right, she gone look at them. If they don’t she gone overlook them..I think she should give them a lil more attention…they might have problems at home or something. You never know what’s going in a child life, but I feel you should treat them all the same…” (Lauria, 78)
These overlooked students who receive degrading treatment or who are routinely ignored by their teacher are unable to form more positive, receptive relationships that sustains a good learning environment. This places them at even a higher rate for academic failure because there’s tension and a lack of approachableness in the educational environment, thus hindering them from receiving the necessary help. In contrast, excelling students who are generally express more motivation and responsiveness in the classroom and zeal to learn share a more positive, uplifting relationship with their teacher. Most likely, these teachers of advance-tracked classes are content with their position that allows them to immerse in the depths of a particular academic concept and use different methods to engage the entire classroom while teachers in remedial classes use didactic, hostile approaches stemming from their dissatisfaction with the academic level of their classes. Using tracking in schools constrains student’s relationships with their teachers and their larger school experience. The treatment they receive, either explicitly or implicitly, becomes a heavy factor in their attitude towards school and overall self-esteem. The academic curriculum of low-track classes differs vastly from their advanced-track counterpart; when teachers resort to rudimentary lesson plans and a curriculum that is stripped of depth, it has a direct, unfair effect on the low-performing students’ opportunity to learn and acquire knowledge suited for a particular grade level. Within the typical “low-track” classroom there’s a typical absence of in-depth intellectual processes prone to develop because of the kinds of knowledge students had access to. After an extensive study conducted by educator, John Goodlad, trained investigators visited more than 1,000 classrooms nationwide observing, comparing, recording, and assessing the inner-workings of selective U.S. schools. Throughout this process they were able to delve into the underpinnings of the classroom environment that provides the groundwork for opportunities to learn. The studies discovered that in a high-track English class the students were exposed to content that may be considered “high-status knowledge”, such as classical and modern literature that would be required for collegiate use. In addition, they were able to study literary genre, analyze literary elements, and were expected to complete numerous expository writing assignments centering on specific themes or research-based. Throughout the process, they learn enriching vocabulary that could bolster their scores on college entrance exams. On the other hand, low-track English classes rarely encountered these “higher-thinking” kinds of assignments involving critical thinking skills, analysis, and advanced literary linguistics. Generally, the teachers main objective was improving reading skills, which may be necessary in a setting where students are reading at a below average level; however, as they were assigned “young adult” fiction with simplistic concepts, the one-dimensional surrounding lesson plans along with them lacked the comparable enrichment in higher classes. For instance, instead of adapting the concept of themes and analysis to the less-advanced novels, teachers relied on English workbooks, numerous worksheets, and other simple learning tasks for mere memorization or those assignments requiring low-level comprehension and overall drill test (Goodlad, 16-22). Goodlad’s study only highlights the immense differentiations in the English classes, but when these dissimilarities expand to other subject curriculums the low-performing students entire academic career becomes degenerative. The crude content being provided in remedial classes are condescendingly simplistic for the students; instead, of the less-advanced curriculum including the same concepts and breadth of knowledge, teachers opt to omit information that may possibly serve as the vehicle for students to move into higher track classes. These tracking practices in some cases do serve as protection to prevent total failure of students who are not able to survive the more advanced concepts, but when the differences in lesson places become inferior instruction it places the remedial classes in a position to accept an inadequate education and locked-out of certain opportunities of academic progression. Tracking can be advantageous for high-achievement students after graduation; however, students placed on the either average- or remedial-track chances for postsecondary opportunities and admission are hindered because of their incompetent transcript. With the rising competition in college admissions because of the growing enrollment classes, colleges have become much more selective. A student who has followed along a low-track throughout their high school career consisting of classes that are considered easy may still aspire to attend a four-year university. Although, they may have stellar grades in the classes assigned for them, their competition includes students who have a more impressionable transcript filled with rigorous, advanced classes that were never available to them. With the expanding role of challenging classes listed on a transcript in college admission decisions, low-tracked students who were unable to place into these classes are subdued into seeking other mediocre institutions or vocational establishments upon graduation. A recent survey of deans of admission explained the increased emphasis on AP and other honors courses in admission decisions to help identify highly qualified students:
“Because past performance is deemed a strong predictor of student performance, admissions officers carefully review applicants’ transcripts to determine how well and to what extent the applicants have taken advantage of the school- and community-based opportunities available to them in high school. Admissions personnel generally view the presence of AP or IB [International Baccalaureate] courses on a transcript as an indicator of the applicant’s willingness to confront academic challenges.” (National Research Council)
There’s the understanding that colleges want to enroll applicants who can adapt to the scholarship and academic nature in their courses; however, if a student has been mislabeled due to the tracking system and its dependent factors, their intelligence may have been undermined due to the bell-curve categorizing system. Even if they sought “academic challenges” beyond what the lower-tracked classes had to offer, it would be nearly impossible for them to find these motivating tests in a classroom where teaching and curriculum was extremely substandard to the AP or IB courses. The usual non-college preparatory placements are incomparable to the seemingly intimidating transcript filled with either an IB or AP/Honors course load. These presumed rejections from top universities are gradually internalized by low-track students and they usually venture down a postsecondary pathway of low-income jobs or either community colleges. These postgraduate decisions illustrate the effects caused by their subjugation to remedial classes where higher expectations from their teachers were rare. Nowadays, in order to have a sustaining lifestyle supported by a quality job position or career, employers require more than a mere high school diploma, so it’s pertinent that low-tracked students are allowed the same opportunities for postsecondary education. The other commendable well-rounded characteristics that colleges search for such as earnestness, industriousness, and extracurricular activities, may be present in lower-tracked students; however, the heavyweight of a transcript prevails most times when the competition rises. Without these openings they are subjugated into less-fulfilling jobs due to the unavailability of noteworthy courses that colleges and other postsecondary institutions judge as meritable for admission.
In the 21st century, with the ever-presence of tracking and all of its faltering, it has been commonly accepted artifact of school structure that is presumed to be necessary. However, the process of academic segregation creates an inequitable learning environment for the lower-tracked students that almost portray the same negative propensities of separate classrooms before the Brown v. Board of Education decision. The obvious academic labeling system changes many dynamics of the entire school regime and creates certain hindrances, such as student relationships with their teachers, access to higher knowledge above the basic level, and postsecondary opportunities, due to the separation caused by the dominant course load stratification system. Without elementary and secondary schools acclimating to society’s changing times and both emotional and academic necessities of their students, the current maladaptive tracking practices will derail the future for many students who aren’t notably “gifted” or “AP/honorary” according to the flawed labeling system.

Works Cited

Braddock, Jomills Henry and Marvin P. Dawkins. “Ability Grouping, Aspirations,
And Attainments: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.” Journal of Negro Education 62.3 (Summer 1993): 324-336.

Cohn, Marilyn M., and Robert B. Kottkamp. "The Impact of Change in the Context of Schooling: The Teacher 's Story." Teachers: The Missing Voice in Education. Albany: State University of New York, 1993. 113-23. Print.

Goodlad, John I. "What Schools and Classrooms Teach." A Place Called School. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 197-210. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.

Lauria, Mickey, and Luis F. Miro. "Student-Teacher Relations." Urban Schools: The New Social Spaces of Resistance. New York: P. Lang, 2005. 69-86. Print.

Molnar, Alex. Social Issues and Education: Challenge & Responsibility (1987): 16-25. Print

National Research Council. (1999a). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation. J. Heubert and R. Hauser, eds. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cited: Braddock, Jomills Henry and Marvin P. Dawkins. “Ability Grouping, Aspirations, And Attainments: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.” Journal of Negro Education 62.3 (Summer 1993): 324-336. Cohn, Marilyn M., and Robert B. Kottkamp. "The Impact of Change in the Context of Schooling: The Teacher 's Story." Teachers: The Missing Voice in Education. Albany: State University of New York, 1993. 113-23. Print. Goodlad, John I. "What Schools and Classrooms Teach." A Place Called School. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 197-210. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. Lauria, Mickey, and Luis F. Miro. "Student-Teacher Relations." Urban Schools: The New Social Spaces of Resistance. New York: P. Lang, 2005. 69-86. Print. Molnar, Alex. Social Issues and Education: Challenge & Responsibility (1987): 16-25. Print National Research Council. (1999a). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation. J. Heubert and R. Hauser, eds. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.