That students learn at different paces is no surprise to teachers and educators, but a more controversial issue is how to incorporate this fact into education. A common strategy utilized is tracking, the sorting of students into classes based on academic achievement. Tracking as a focused policy has a long-established history in the U.S., originating in the progressive era and continuing today. Proponents highlight its capacity to individualize learning, while critics decry it as an outdated institution that harms achievement for lower-track students. This work argues that that tracking unfairly limits equity and excellence for disadvantaged and minority students but acknowledges that more research is needed to determine which method of detracking works best. I thus advocate for a reform that is research and outcome oriented—creating a federal funding source for school districts interested in implementing detracking efforts that adhere to certain standards. The reform is focused on high school freshman English and Social Studies programs. I will cover limitations and counterarguments to this reform, as well as provide an example of a plan that would qualify for funding. This reform aims to increase equity and excellence for lower-track students by providing districts funds to implement detracking in freshman English and Social Studies classes, at the same time strengthening detracking research.
Brief History of Tracking
Tracking as an institutionalized education policy in the U.S. gained momentum in the early 20th century. From 1900 to 1950, enrollment in public schools increased by 4.4 million students, and this increasingly diverse student body pressured educators to differentiate students (Reese 2011, pp. 78). Pedagogical progressives like Dewey advocated an individualized education that focused on a child’s growth and freedom, while administrative progressives like Thorndike emphasized that innate differences in intelligence necessitated ability grouping and tracking (Reese 2011, pp. 92). Thorndike and colleagues advocated that it was socially inefficient to provide students with the same education given these innate differences (Reese 2011, pp. 93). Importantly for the future of American education, administrative progressives largely gained control of education policy during this era (Merseth 2017). Unfortunately, their emphasis on student differences was often used by radicals and segregationists to justify discrimination. For example, tracking gained popularity in the south as a way to reinforce racial order within integrated schools (Londen, 1995). Current tracking may not intentionally recapitulate such discrimination, but I argue that these discriminatory roots continue. In the 1980s, backlash to tracking emerged as studies showed that minority students were disproportionately assigned to lower performing tracks, which received less funding and less experienced teachers (Hallinan, 2005). Efforts to abolish tracking were largely unsuccessful, and tracking within schools has surged in frequency due to emphasis on test scores as measures of school achievement (Kohl, 2014).
The problem and its nuances
Tracking has historically been a controversial issue, but evidence against its efficacy is mounting. For this paper and reform, I define equity to mean representation reflective of the population in classes and equal access to resources like experienced teachers and funding, and I define excellence to mean academic achievement, including grades, standardized test scores, and college acceptances. Advocates emphasize that tracking improves excellence for higher-track students even if they are minority students but rarely mention the effects on lower-track student performance or equity (Loveless, 2016). A literature review by the National Education Policy Center found that tracking is a “harmful, inequitable, and unsupportable practice”, noting that it disproportionately damages the learning of minority students, who are overrepresented in lower tracks (Matthis, 2013). A meta-analysis of over 500 studies on tracking concluded that “tracking has minimal effects on learning outcomes and profound negative impacts on equity outcomes” (Hattie, 2009). Tracking also cements inequity, as students are given little opportunity to move out of their assigned track. The primary concern tracking raises is thus one of equity and excellence of lower-track students.
Why does tracking still persist today? Many teachers find that teaching a detracked classroom is difficult and bores higher performing students while leaving lower ones behind. Detracking also requires professional training and changing curriculum, a difficult financial task for some schools. A more insoluble issue is the culture surrounding tracking. Parents of higher-track students tend to be white, well-educated, and highly vocal in their opposition to detracking, while teachers of higher-track classes are more senior and possess more influence (Hallinan, 2005). Lisa Delpit gives us a framework to view this culture of tracking, as it relates strongly to her “culture of power”, or the framework of privilege that often restricts the growth of underprivileged students in schools. Parents, students, and even teachers in positions of privilege are least likely to acknowledge the existence of privilege and thus more likely to ignore the negative effects of tracking. This leads to discrimination against underprivileged students, who are viewed as lazy or incompetent, and these same students populate lower-tracks in schools (Delpit, 1988).
Context and scope of reform
For the context of this reform, I will focus on tracking in freshman high school English and Social Studies programs. High schools have the most distinguished tracking systems in the U.S.; as of 1993, over 86% of high schools offered tracked courses (Hallinan, 2005). Students are typically sorted into classes starting in freshman year. Tracked high schools often offer AP courses, which have a severe underrepresentation of minority students (Kohl 2014). High schools also offer a variety of metrics to measure equity and excellence, although these metrics are imperfect. Equity can be measured by enrollment in honors and AP courses, and excellence can be measured by graduation/dropout rates and acceptance to post-secondary institutions. The reform focuses on English and Social Studies because tracking for math and science courses often begins in middle school, and detracking for English and Social Studies, which rely less on prior learning, is more politically and logistically amenable.
The reform
Although it is clear detracking needs a solution, simply dissolving tracking programs is ineffective and cost intensive, and research on specific detracking methods is scarce (Rosembaum, 1999). My proposed reform is called the School Detracking Innovation Act (SDIA), a piece of legislation that establishes a federal funding source for individual districts to pursue detracking reform in high school freshman English and Social Studies classes. Districts can apply for funding and will be approved as long as they present a plan that adheres to guidelines I will define. There are three overarching goals of this reform. The primary focus is to increase equity in schools by increasing enrollment of minority students in higher-track courses like AP and Honors. Secondly, the reform is also focused on the excellence of these students; even just enrollment in these courses is correlated with college acceptance and academic achievement (Bavis, 2016). Finally, it is designed to increase the body of research on detracking and to begin to break down the negative culture of tracking. To qualify for funding, districts must provide a plan that addresses common issues associated with detracking, establish time-based goals, and offer results to the federal government for research purposes.
The allocation of this funding to districts rather than states is intentional. Given the research that suggests detracking success relies on context (Yettick, 2016), this act allows districts to design plans specific to their high schools. Furthermore, it allows a more direct accountability and guidance system. There are drawbacks to such a scope, and the reform would likely impact more schools if allocated to states. But this policy is centered on quality over quantity; by focusing on school districts and providing direct support to make detracking successful, we are better able to determine which methods work.
Elements of the application – the plan
Each application must include a plan for detracking that satisfies a number of guidelines. The central requirement for application is that the freshman English and/or Social Studies class be detracked completely—no consideration may be given to prior achievement in the subject unless it is to ensure an equal distribution of ability in classes or remedial classes are required for certain students. Tracking may continue in future grades but must adhere to guidelines defined later. Furthermore, schools cannot simply dissolve tracking; they must provide clear, practical policies to solve the following issues: curriculum and teacher training for detracked classes, improving underachieving student performance in detracked classes, and providing future directions for growth to students. The district must provide demographic statistics on enrollment and achievement in their schools and provide time-based goals for these statistics over the time of reform implementation. The funding is divided into specific sections for use; districts, for example, get a set amount of funding to pursue teacher training. The funding cannot be used for other purposes, and this ensures that all elements of successful detracking policy are followed.
For teacher training, school districts must provide a several-year plan that thoroughly trains teachers how to instruct and revise curriculum for detracked classes. This training must be completed by teachers before the school transitions into detracking. The plan must include a diverse set of trainings that have been shown to equip teachers to teach a detracked classroom, including trainings on diversity and inclusion, differentiated learning, and working to abolish stereotypes about underperforming students (Rubin and Noguera, 2004). Teachers hired during the transition or reform are required to complete similar, more condensed trainings. Without such trainings, teachers risk perpetuating the negative culture of tracking and defeating a purpose of the reform.
School districts must devise a plan to support severely underperforming students in the detracked environment. They might dedicate funding and resources to providing them extra instruction or tutoring or take steps to decrease the size of detracked classrooms, allowing for greater personalized attention for these students. By supporting these students in detracked environments, teachers can raise the average instruction level while maintaining learning for all students. To preserve equity, school districts must demonstrate a commitment to providing avenues for achievement after the detracked class for all students enrolled. This includes opening enrollment to all levels of 2nd year coursework in the subject, which increases equity by eliminating the rigidity of the tracked system. Schools must provide plans to follow and provide support for severely underperforming students after they leave the detracked classroom, although this support need not be as intensive as during detracked instruction.
If school districts choose to reinstate tracking after freshman year, enrollment in these tracked classes must be based only on performance in the detracked classroom, and this fact must be made clear to all students at the beginning of the freshman school year. Furthermore, schools must provide clear, attainable criteria and expectations for students to enroll in future honors and AP classes, and these criteria should be emphasized throughout the school year. By providing students clear avenues for achievement, schools can increase excellence and equity for minority students by increasing their representation and performance in these classes.
School districts must set goals for and track the following demographic metrics throughout the reform: AP and honors level enrollment and grade performance, graduation rate, standardized test (AP, ACT/SAT, and state) scores, and the college acceptance and retention rate. The federal government approves these goals. Although the continuation of funding is not contingent on meeting goals, schools failing to reach their goals will receive guidance from an intervention force composed of experts with experience in detracking policy.
Limitations and an example
Some will criticize that this reform allows schools to reinitialize tracking after the first year—after all, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? The reason for allowing tracking after freshman year is twofold. Given the lack of solid detracking data, it is important to keep reforms politically and logistically feasible. Secondly, the limitations the reform places on future tracking (open enrollment and clear/achievable criteria) do much to eliminate the inequity present in current tracking programs, and AP and honors level courses are not appropriate for all students. The reform is primarily dedicated to increasing equity and excellence for traditionally lower-track students by abolishing labels and providing access and guidance in higher level courses. Another valid criticism of the reform is that it does not ensure excellence of traditionally higher-track students. While it is true that the focus of the reform is on improving equity and excellence for lower-track students, this does not mean that higher-track students necessarily suffer. The parallels are not exact, but racial and socioeconomic integration often achieve classes heterogeneous in ability. Studies have shown white and upper-class students (typically higher-track students) do not suffer as a result (Kahlenburg, 2012). Teachers with experience in detracking note that all students are more engaged in heterogeneous classrooms (Rubin and Noguera, 2004).
It is useful to consider an example of such a plan. Prior to detracking, Evanston Township High (ETHS) looked like the rest of the country. Students were tracked immediately on entering high school, and tracks were heavily racialized. Participation and performance in AP and honors courses by minority students was abysmally low, and these students were overrepresented in lower tracks (Bavis, 2016). I spoke with Dr. Peter Bavis, assistant superintendent of the school district. “We sought to fix racial predictability for academic achievement…we saw that as a barrier to long term achievement,” he explained. To solve this, the school instituted a detracked program for freshman English, Social Studies, and Biology, implementing an earned honors system in its place. Students earn points throughout the year based on their performance on specific assessments; if they obtain at least 80% of available points, they qualify for honors courses the following year. “It allows us to measure persistence and grit to a certain extent,” Bavis elaborated. “We’ve also found that it prepares students for future honors work”. To solve the issue of severely underperforming students, ETHS provides an additional class for these students in the subject if they have low incoming test scores. “We’ve found that it enables these students to perform in our earned honors system,” Bavis explained. He also emphasized the role of teacher training in breaking the culture surrounding tracking. The staff underwent a number of trainings emphasizing diversity and equity as well as differentiated learning. “All of these [trainings] have forced our teachers to look at AP courses. Are they welcoming to students of color?” he explained. So far, their efforts are succeeding—minority enrollment in AP level courses is rising, as is performance on standardized tests and college acceptances (Bavis, 2016). Importantly, there’s been no decrease in achievement for traditionally higher-tracked students.
ETHS has utilized a plan that would qualify for funding under the reform, clearly addressing elements of teacher training, support for underperforming students, and future avenues for student growth. Not all reforms need look like this. Assigning underperforming students an additional class would be impractical for some schools, and I’m skeptical of the earned honors system’s reliance on individual tests to measure readiness for future tracked courses. Nevertheless, it is a powerful example of the potential benefits of detracking on increasing equity and excellence for traditionally lower-track students. This work is just an outline for SDIA—the real implementation would involve years of planning specific nuances of detracking.