In the early 20th century, a dangerous movement postulated that certain groups of people are superior to others swept across the United States. This very idea inspired former president Calvin Coolidge to declare, “America must be kept American. Biological laws show… that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races.” Though framed in less bigoted terms, the underlying belief that some are superior to other remains pervasive through the use of tracking.
Tracking in a school is the separation of students by perceived skill or academic ability. For example, in high school it is not unusual for schools to have what are the equivalents of remedial, basic and honors mathematics courses.
According to the National Journal of Jan. 2, 2011, tracking remains alive and well in the education system with 75 percent of schools tracking math classes and 43 percent tracking English.
In an email correspondence conducted with Dr. Christopher Robbins, associate professor in the EMU Department of Teacher Education, he explained the mindset behind tracking: “Tracking has been done, in part, because it provided an allegedly ‘objective’ and efficient way of sorting students in ways that reflected the economic demands of the schools’ wider communities and the society more generally.”
Echoing Welner is an April 2010 article in the Journal of Higher Education that holds tracking at least partly responsible for widening racial disparities in academic preparation and achievement. Compounding this indictment is a March 2010 report that tracking encourages self-segregation and ultimately prevents people from different backgrounds from interacting.
Unfortunately, the tracking mindset designates high value to standardized tests, which have received their own share of criticism. In a famous 2006 TED conference speech, education theorist Ken Robinson offered a blistering attack (albeit a humorous, poignant one) on the dominant pedagogy, arguing that the system has “mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the Earth: for a particular commodity.”
All of this should lead one to the blindingly obvious question: What is the function of education? How one thinks of education in the context of values, creativity, economic demand, democracy, religion and so forth will ultimately decide how one believes the system itself should materialize.
It is imperative to begin to consider that philosophical stance before one can pass judgment on tracking. With that important caveat posted, we can begin to consider: Is tracking compatible with revered values such as equality?
Does tracking foster creativity? Clearly, these questions have already been answered in this article, yet viewing the answers under different lights makes concepts in education like “efficiency” sound entirely too narrow.
There are legitimate alternatives to tracking as well. Dr. Robbins again enlightens: “Some schools, before the era of standardization and ‘accountability,’ produced and used more holistic curricular models where students’ coursework generated from their interests and tended to revolve more around project-based learning and inquiry that integrated multiple subject areas and fostered a wider band of skill sets.”
He also qualifies this answer by saying that varying degrees of success have arisen from these alternatives.
As the 21st century inexorably marches on, tracking still reeks of 20th century attitudes that were racist, ignorant and misplaced. Surely we can begin to mold an education system that isn’t rigid and wholly contingent upon all-important scores. Then again, since I’m not Nordic, perhaps the biological laws president Coolidge described have simply rendered my argument fallacious.
