Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route

Jeannie Oakes discusses the problem of tracking in class rooms. Although some people think that separating the gifted students from the slower learners is necessary to provide more challenging material for the fast learners, Oakes argues that there are ways that work well to get the most out of each student by intergating fast and slow learners.

"in John Goodlad's national study of schools, reported in the book A Place Called School, students in high-ability English classes were more likely to be taught classic and modem literature, provided instruction in expository writing and library researcb, and expected to leam vocabulary that would eventually boost their scores on college entrance exams."

This is a real example where seperating fast learners and slow learners create a huge disadvantage for those slower learners later on in their education. The teacher takes the time to teach the fast learners important vocabulary words and provides them with work that makes them think rather than worksheets. They learn how to research and use the library for that cause. The slower learning students don't get that information later. It's not offered. The problem is that faster learners are getting more from school. The slower learners learn less just because it takes them longer to learn. That's not an equal education, especially when you think about the different ways that these students are being asked to learn. The faster learners are being challenge while the slower learners are just being asked to keep up.

"In low-ability classes, for example, teacbers seem to be less encouraging and more punitive, placing more emphasis on discipline and 'behavior and less on academic learning. Compared to teachers in high-ability classes, they seem to be more concerned about getting students to follow directions, be on time, and sit quietly."

I noticed this a lot when I was in middle school. I was put into the lowest level classroom in 6th grade. Kids acted up all class. The teachers hated us. Sometimes they would try and control the class and sometimes they would just give up. Either way they got tired of getting interupted and would end up assigning book work to do all class.

I didn't learn very much.

but I saw what the highest level class was doing when I'd walk by. They were having discussions, even in middle school! I'd never really remembered an open discussion before high school. They were talking about things, they were behaving. They didn't even have to raise their hands half the time to voice their opinion. They did projects and worked in pairs. And they were learning, and I wished that I was doing those things instead of doing book work because book work was what made me hate school to begin with.


"Perhaps the most important and difficult task for those who would change tracking is to confront deeply held beliefs, such as the belief that academic ability is fixed very early and is largely unchangeable or that achievement differences can be largely accounted for by differences in ability."

So true! I wasn't a very good student at all in elementary and middle school. I didn't get things right away and I didn't have the patience to do half of the reading and book work assigned. But I changed. It's not impossible. "Stupid" kids aren't stupid unless you condemn them to be. They can learn, they can catch up, they can get straight A's without having to study twice as hard as fast learners.

I think it all comes down to expectations and interests. If students hate book work, which MOST do, then you NEED to change the way that you're teaching. Don't cut out book work entirely because it may be useful for students later on, but incoporate a variety of learning styles. Some teachers don't give the slower learners that variety. No wonder they're not interested, they're bored.

I still don't know how much I agree about completely getting rid of tracking. I see all the bad in it. At the same time, I know how distracting it was to be with kids who had no interest at ALL in school. Sometimes I wonder if they would have had interest if things were taught differently. I don't know. I also think that there should still be programs for gifted students just like other students need IEPs and resource classes. Why should you punish the fast learners?

I do think that classrooms should be mixed though, mixed but with programs for both students who need addition help and students who need more of a challenge. It's tough to say that because I can see the problem with slow learners not getting as much information as fast learners in school. At the same time, you can't deny fast learns the right to expand their knowledge. They shouldn't be punish, I really think that there's just some matieral that's IS too hard for slow learners. Matieral that IS too intimidating. Material that they're just not ready for yet, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I'm all for high expectations, but in my middle school some of the fast learners were learning math that would have made me want to cry. Every teacher should set high expectations for their students, but they need to be practical. I'm sure some of my current classmates could write a 80 page essay on World War II. Right now, I feel that something that big would be overwhelming and a ridiculous expectation of me. I haven't been prepared to write essays that long yet. I'm not ashamed of that, but if a student wants to take honors classes where they have to write an 80 page paper, why shouldn't they? Yes, I'm not learning that skill, but maybe I'm not ready for it yet. Maybe I'm still trying to perfect my 20 page papers.

1 comment:

  1. those posts about sexism are great i really enjoyed reading/looking over them

    ReplyDelete