Hugs Instead of Handshakes: The Demise of Tracking in Schools

The thrill of victory; the agony of defeat. That's a catch phrase to which most Americans connect emotionally. We think of Michael Phelps in Beijing; we think of the 2004 Red Sox. Most poignantly, we feel the concept of real.

Real hard work multiplied by real talent makes for competition at an appropriately high level. We win; we lose; we assess.

But in many schools around the country, that realness is being taken away from the learning experience. Schools by the hundreds are removing "tracking," the practice of dividing students according to achievement levels that started in the early 20th century when immigration levels were increasing (source). The "A Track" for high-achieving kids is being removed, and an amalgam of A, B, and C tracks are being dumped together.

Remember the Kia commercial where the kids team wins every game, but he only gets a "participation trophy"? His father is appalled. Well, each year, dozens of kids hope to be linebackers on the football team. Many try out; only a few make the A Track Team (starting varsity). A few play for the B Track Team in the form of junior varsity. And the myriad remainders who were too skinny, too slow, too sensitive, or just too clueless are cut from the football team. Oh well. They tried; they lost.

Tracking in one form or another exists for good reason in sports: hundred pound 14-year-olds crashing into 240-pound 18-year-olds makes for a festival of injuries. What would happen on a football team if we didn't track? Cut to the same situation in a math class where we've misguidedly done away with tracking. What would you guess happens to the C Track kids when the teacher asks for answers? Do they not feel the same 100 pound plus collision pain?

The C Trackers sift to the bottom, hoping to escape the mathletic collisions simply uninjured. Why is it okay to be honest and forthright with athletes but not with mathletes?

Well, when most educators are asked about it, they say...totally different things.

Yep, there's no consensus.

Many teachers claim that tracking just creates a larger gap between high-and low-achieving students and that "students assigned to low-ability groups score lower on standardized tests than if they had been placed in mixed-ability or high-ability groups" (source). Oh, and P.S. football is optional and math class...isn't.

On the other side, some teachers love it because they don't have to worry as much about massive differentiation within one classroom (source). They also feel like tracking holds back the A-track students in favor of mediocrity.

There doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence about the benefits of tracking vs. detracking at this point (source)—not to mention an investigation of the varying types of tracking. The New York Times makes it pretty clear for us:

Though the issue is one of the most frequently studied by education scholars, there is little consensus about grouping’s effects.

Some studies indicate that grouping can damage students’ self-esteem by consigning them to lower-tier groups; others suggest that it produces the opposite effect by ensuring that more advanced students do not make their less advanced peers feel inadequate. Some studies conclude that grouping improves test scores in students of all levels, others that it helps high-achieving students while harming low-achieving ones, and still others say that it has little effect. (Source)

So yeah...we don't have an answer yet. Of course, the research continues. And the conversation should, too.