Does tracking students meet or neglect students' learning needs? Is it fair? Undemocratic? Immoral? Does it work, despite its problematic premise? On BreadNet, a telecommunications network that links teachers and graduates of the Bread Loaf School of English in Middlebury, Vermont, teachers from throughout the United States discussed this important issue.
Judy (Ohio)
Tracking. Leveling. A blessing to some, anathema to others. When I went to high school, it was standard practice. College prep or vocational track. In fact, I remember wanting to take Home Economics but not being allowed to because it didn't fit in with my track. That was in 1970. Eventually, tracking went the way of bomb shelters and civil defense drills.
Fast-forward 30 years. After receiving a well-rounded college education, I find myself in a 9th grade English classroom with 27 students of varying backgrounds and skills. A few students are ready to tackle the mirrored nature of the plot structure of To Kill a Mockingbird. Another group will probably be able to understand the metaphor of the title. A large group is going to struggle to read the book, and another group will not read the book, nor will they do any of the other work associated with studying the novel.
But wait! Here comes the final piece of the puzzle: I have 41 minutes in which to deal with all of these situations. By the time 27 13- and 14-year-olds come into class, settle, and get their books out—and I take attendance and sign excuses from those who were absent the previous day (or three or four)—we have about 35 minutes of actual instructional time. Do you see any potential for a child to be left behind?
So with whom do I start that day? Do I talk briefly with the group that is looking at the mirrored structure of the plot, then let them go because they are essentially capable of teaching themselves? Then do I move on to the group that is ready to look at the metaphor of the title, give them guiding questions, and let them work? And what about that huge group of 15 who have never read a novel in their lives? Never mind the three or four students who are chronic attendance problems, probably qualify for some piece of the developmentally disabled pie, and only come to school because their parents don't want to go to jail. The clock is ticking.
Last year, we sat down as an English department and administrative team to consider leveling students in the 8th grade. We are a small school, so we separated students into three groups for their 9th grade year. Kids are smart. They knew right away who the bluebirds and the redbirds and the blackbirds were. We separated them according to several criteria: grades, standardized test scores, work habits, writing abilities, and general attitudes. Three of the five criteria were relatively objective. The other two—work habits and general attitudes—were made on the basis of teacher observation. A group of teachers did the grouping to ensure fair judgments as much as possible.
If you are bristling now at this whole concept and practice, please read on. It also went against every instinct I had as a teacher. We all agreed from the outset, however, that no kid was locked into a group. Any student who met the criteria for placement could move at any time—even midyear if conditions warranted. The results of the program were astonishing to me. I had the middle group, and I soon discovered that expectations make all the difference. I communicated early on to my group that I had high expectations. Regardless of what their plans were for postsecondary life, they had to know how to read and write. For me, the easiest way to teach and learn reading and writing is to, well, read and write.
Because the gaps dividing them were narrower, the first thing I noticed in class was that during discussion of the literature, I didn't have the same hands shooting up instantly. I asked the question, and then practiced my wait time because it took a little while for hands to go up. At the end of the year, when we discussed how the class had gone, my students told me this:In the past, when we discussed literature, certain kids always had all the answers. There was no need for us to respond because they already had it covered. All we had to do was sit and listen. Since they always had the right answers, we didn't have to do anything.
The English department met weekly to discuss how this experiment was going. The strengths clearly outweighed the weaknesses. When we looked at the wide disparity in ability and background among our students and then read the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation, we believed that ability groups were the best way to address individual needs. Yes, that bottom group could be a drudge, but that bottom group was smaller, and we could give more individualized instruction to each student. The top group was a dream. A whole class full of motivated students! Those in the middle group, who had frequently succeeded by being good and quiet, became more confident students who found their voices in the classroom.
Janet (South Carolina)
I adamantly believe that tracking is a bad idea. As a southerner, I have seen tracking used as an excuse to keep poorer, economically distressed children “in their places.” Vocal parents insist that their children be placed in the top class, whereas poorer parents who have no voice cannot get their children in the classes where they belong. And do you think those students in the lower levels receive a quality education?
Many teachers perceive “lower-level” students as not being teachable and don't push them as hard as they do those whom the teachers perceive as smart. With heterogeneous grouping, the bright black and white children don't have to get labeled as middle-level students just because there is no room for everyone in the top section.
As it did in the 1970s, the U.S. government is stepping in to tell us what to do in our schools. No Child Left Behind calls for all students—all students—to be at a proficient level. Of course, no one has yet clearly defined what proficient means, but if we are to help all students become proficient readers and writers, we have to expect excellence from them now and in the future. I have great difficulty believing that leveling will provide the opportunity to deliver the kind of instruction that produces proficiency.
Currently, I teach 8th grade literature in a heterogeneous setting. I have a large number of gifted students and an equally large number of resource students. Mixed in with these learners is the so-called middle level that doesn't get any special recognition. How do I manage to reach all of these students? The answer lies in being aware of each learner as an individual and trying to address each learner's needs.
I empathize with Judy's dilemma, but I believe that my students learn better because those who have more academic talent challenge the slower learners. These slower learners also bring cultural richness and diversity that is not found in a classroom where everyone has the same ethnic or perceived socio-economic background.
A heterogeneous setting can also be appropriate in high school. Some years ago, I taught Applied English (Tech-Prep) to juniors and seniors. I taught them as if they were in a top section. We read Chaucer and Shakespeare and wrote essays right along with our business letters and memos. Any student of any level would have benefited from that instruction. Only good and consistent teaching will improve education.
Evelyn (Arizona)
Good teachers are creative. If we are forced to configure and reconfigure our plans, then that's what we have to do to accomplish our goals. The challenge in teaching is to produce the rabbit out of the hat in an original but meaningful way to our learners.
Pauline (Alaska)
Whenever we start leveling our students, we send a loud, personal message to each student. I understand that we are searching for ways to improve student learning, and I understand that our intentions are good. But may we never forget that our students will be next to voice opinions about what is right or wrong about their own children's education.
Karen (Alaska)
What gets forgotten in the fray is that one method is not exclusive of the other. “Whole language” went down the tubes because teachers thought that they had to throw out everything that was considered traditional, like phonics. Yet we now know that programs incorporating the best of both approaches work well. Students need to work with others at their own level, and we need to teach them that way, some of the time. But they also need models and interaction with others, both faster and slower learners.
Tish (Vermont)
I have such strong feelings about this issue, as clearly lots of you do. Today I was in the computer lab with my “B”-level group. Although they are all wonderful people, no one in the group inspires them toward their better instincts. So, especially this time of year, they feed off the less desirable role models. There are much larger issues under the surface of who's in what class. I chickened out of taking them on at my high school. I hope you will keep talking, take these issues on yourselves, and continue to inspire me to open up the issue again.
Mary (Arizona)
I am a firm believer in heterogeneous groupings. Students learning from one another and working in a collaborative manner develop more skills for living and learning than they do in a tracked system. Yes, it demands more creativity and patience. Sometimes I wonder whether we forget that we are teaching students. I see many who teach content but miss the student component.
Renee (Mississippi)
Professional teachers need more flexibility to do what we do best: make our own judgments and serve the needs of students. Whether it's called “leveling,” “tracking,” or “bluebirds and crows,” the key is whether students can move between these groups or simply get labeled and sifted out of high-quality learning opportunities. Conversely, heterogeneous grouping of students under an ineffective teacher or a system that ignores individual needs and growth deprives students as well.
Tammy (Alaska)
The other high school in our district considered moving to multigrade classes in their English courses, but the argument was made that it is “impossible” to teach students of different grade levels in one class. I believe that all schools should work to include multigrade groupings all the way through. It is sooo good for kids!
Janet (South Carolina)
Our discussion has helped me recognize the validity of Judy's argument. Students do have a higher stake in learning when they feel successful. Perhaps by the time students reach 11th or 12th grade, they might be ready to be tracked, but only into equal tracks. As long as the course is rigorous and helps students better understand the material, then it is appropriate to allow students to be in tracked settings.
An altogether different scenario emerges when students can choose their own “level” rather than get tracked according to test scores. Peers are simply that—peers—who may be college-bound, tech school-bound, or work force-bound, but who aren't being labeled as failures.
For 15 years, I taught high school at my alma mater. During one visit home, a young man flagged me down in town to tell me that he owed me his career because when I taught him, I set up an interview for him with the owner of a logging firm. He went to work for that man, and eventually started his own business. Now, he makes a lot of money in timber sales and transportation—all because he had to write an I-Search paper for my class, which included the interview with his future boss. When I was in high school, only the college-bound students had to write research papers. The “low-level” kids usually did only worksheets.
If we don't expect rigorous work from our students, I don't care whether we track, level, or use heterogeneous grouping—we are doing them a disservice.
