The new tracking

May 24, 2011 By Michael E. Lopez 6 Comments

The old tracking was racist, classist and hurtful.

The new “tracking” is basically a roll of the die, but just as hurtful, according to Barry Garelick.   It’s a long essay; some may not want to read the whole thing, so I’ll summarize what I see his argument as in five points:

When we threw out tracking in the late 60′s and early 70′s, we accidentally threw out ability grouping, too.  Not everywhere, but in significant quantity.When we threw out tracking in the late 60′s and 70′s, we quite purposefully threw out explicit, teacher-centered instruction, too, because we wanted to make things relevant.  Again, not everywhere, but in significant quantity.Without these things — ability grouping and explicit instruction — it’s incredibly difficult to learn.  As a result many students don’t learn the things they need to learn at their schools.  But whether they learn these things or not is reduced to a bit of a lottery: did you happen to land in a school that was teaching well, or poorly?   If so, you probably learned.  If not, well…Those students who haven’t been properly taught are now by and large being written off as “not college material”, “not good at math”, or lacking in “cognitive ability”.  (Uh oh… now I’ve gone and done it.)  This is its own insidious form of tracking, cutting off futures just as surely as if a black kid was forced into general arithmetic.

And here’s the last paragraph, where the meaty conclusion is.  If you read this in isolation, though, you’ll miss much of the argument:

But students who have been put on the protection-from-learning track fulfill the low expectations that have been conferred upon them. The education establishment’s view of this situation is a shrug, and—despite their justifications for the inquiry-based and student-centered approach that brings out all children’s’ “innate” knowledge of math—respond with “Maybe your child just isn’t good in math”. The admonition carries to subjects beyond math and is extended to “Maybe your child isn’t college material.” And while it is true that a “college for all” goal is unrealistic, the view that so many students somehow are lacking in cognitive ability raises serious questions. As Schmidt (2011) states in his paper: “To attribute achievement differences solely to differences in student efforts and abilities is grossly unfair and simpleminded and ignores the fundamental relationship between content coverage and achievement.” There is now an in-bred resistance to do ability grouping and to teach using explicit instruction. That such approach may result in higher achievement, with more students qualifying for gifted and honors programs, is something that the education establishment has come to deny by default. It is an inherent and insidious tracking system that leaves many students behind. And many of those disdain and despise education and the people who managed to achieve what they could not—the same hatred that I imagine Raymond must have felt many years ago.

It’s a decent essay, even if it does repeat itself several times.  And his take on the history of what happened to schools from the 50′s to the 80′s is pretty fascinating, though I’m not vouching for its historical or interpretive accuracy.  Garelick seems aware that what he’s advocating isn’t a panacea — but he does seem to believe that ability grouping and explicit instruction would do a lot more good than is promoted by their absence, and in that I’m inclined to agree.

-->Filed Under: Education About Michael E. Lopez
CommentsCal says: May 24, 2011 at 9:53 am

I was going to write, “So Garelick is saying that all outcomes are determined by the teacher? There is no such thing as cognitive ability? Or did you just paraphrase poorly?”

Until I realized that you were almost certainly paraphrasing poorly.

And while it is true that a “college for all” goal is unrealistic, the view that so many students somehow are lacking in cognitive ability raises serious questions. As Schmidt (2011) states in his paper: “To attribute achievement differences solely to differences in student efforts and abilities is grossly unfair and simpleminded and ignores the fundamental relationship between content coverage and achievement.”

I think it most likely that cognitive ability explains a great deal of the achievement gap–most, if not all of it (with poverty cutting some part of it first).

However, hidden under his avalanche of words is the implicit acknowledgement that kids with less cognitive ability must be taught differently than kids of higher cognitive ability, and that teaching them differently might prepare more of them for college or at least more advanced work. I agree, if so.

Or he’s arguing that rich kids learn entirely outside school and that this alone explains the gap and if that’s the case, then he’s just wrong.

In general, he could have cut this article in half and sounded much less annoying.

Does anyone think it would have the same power if Raymond had been white? No? Because Raymond did fail algebra, and his goal to take Algebra II was totally unrealistic, but the counsellor was supposed to nurture that little spark of “algebra II looks fun” in order to get Raymond working harder–a very unrealistic goal.

Matthew K. Tabor says: May 24, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Hi Michele,

Yes, the story would have had the same power if Raymond had been white. This situation happens in many places, as you know well. When I was in high school, it was the white, lower-class rural kids who were held back by design, having been set up to fail or top out at a mediocre level, and more directly by being academically abandoned.

Raymond’s goal to take Algebra II *at that time* wasn’t realistic — you and Barry would both agree on that — but not putting him Algebra II is a different issue than relegating him to the lowest-level math class and leaving it at that. It’s not an issue of self-esteem, and no one is pretending that Raymond had no ceiling for his math ability — it’s about whether the kid developed optimally in an academic setting. He didn’t.

Cal says: May 24, 2011 at 1:02 pm

How do you know? You all act as if “being in the lowest math class” is some sort of horrible fate. But unless you wish to argue that everyone has exactly the same ability and is capable of exactly the same math achievement, someone has to be in the lowest math class. Who better than someone who got a D in algebra?

Because otherwise you are indeed pretending there isn’t a ceiling to his ability.

And that’s why it matters that Raymond is black, because it’s not that he’s in the lowest math class, but that there are disproportionately too many blacks in the lowest math class. There are several explanations for that, but the least bothersome one is that someone let all down those black kids by putting them in the lowest class and then, somehow, not following up to rekindle Raymond’s spark.

It’s all part of a narrative that people want to pretend is true–that the reason for low achievement is a failure on someone’s part, that with the right handling, Raymond would have ended up in algebra II. But that’s probably not true, and it’s not a narrative we should be comforting ourselves with, deluding ourselves that one happy day all Raymonds will get wonderful teachers.

The reality is that at charter schools across the country, Raymonds are getting wonderful teachers of all shapes and methods–and none of them are getting the Raymonds through algebra II with test scores that prove he knows it. In fact, very few Raymonds are getting through Algebra I.

Cal says: May 24, 2011 at 1:04 pm

I should add that at many comprehensive high schools–including my own–Raymonds are getting support and teaching methods varying from constructive to instructive and beyond. It’s just that reformers like pretending they don’t exist.

momof4 says: May 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Even with good administrators, good teachers, good curriculum choices and good instructional methods (and most schools don’t have all/most of those), there will be kids on the left side of the curve who “don’t get it.” The reasons include cognitive ability and work ethic but they also include peer/family/community factors. Schools can hope to move the entire curve to the right, but (given appropriate academics, which kids in the top third of quarter often don’t get), the curve still exists because it represents actual kids, not the idealized version. Some will always do less well than others.

Both nature and nurture are always in play. Non-PC as it is to admit, the offspring of two semi-literate, unmotivated, unwed teenagers is unlikely to start wtih the same cognitive equipment as the offspring of a MS math teacher married to a nurse, let alone the offspring of parents with grad degrees. Both of the latter families are also more likely to provide out-of-school enrichment/help and to live in communities that expect kids to do well in school.

Matthew K. Tabor says: May 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm

“Who better than someone who got a D in algebra?”

Perhaps someone who got an F in algebra.

Speak Your Mind Cancel replyName *

Email *

Website

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 57,076 bad guys.

The BookSubscribe

Recent Commentstim-10-ber on New NYC tests–of teachersCrimson Wife on The major mattersMatthew K. Tabor on Homeschooling Granny on New NYC tests–of teachersStacy in NJ on Mythconceptions about the purpose of schoolsRecent PostsNew NYC tests–of teachersColorado students provide free tax helpThe teacher as translatorThe major mattersAds
(a) EdBlogsAnswer SheetBrainstormBridging DifferencesChange the EquationCharter InsightsCharterBlogClass StruggleCollege PuzzleCommon CoreCommunity College SpotlightConcord ReviewCore KnowledgeCritical MassCurriculum MattersDaily RiffDana GoldsteinDiscriminationsDropout NationEarly Ed WatchEarly StoriesEd BeatEd ReformerEdMoneyEdspressoEducated GuessEducation GadflyEducation InnovatingEducation NextEducation OptimistsEducation Policy BlogEduFlackEdutopia BlogEduwonkEdWizeEIA InterceptsFIRE’s TorchFlypaperFutures of School ReformGotham SchoolsGradebookHechingerEdHome EducationInside School ResearchJay P. GreeneKitchen Table MathLarry CubanMedia BullpenMinding the CampusNAS BlogNational JournalOut in Left FieldPolitics K-12Public School InsightsQuick and the EdredefinEdRick Hess Straight UpRock the SchoolhouseSchool Law and ReformShanker BlogSherman DornStuart BuckTeacher BeatThe Educated ReporterThis Week in EducationTurnaround ChallengeUniversity DiariesWhitney TilsonWhy Boys Fail(b) TeacherBlogsA Teacher’s EducationA Teacher’s ViewAssorted StuffBiology and BlueberriesCoach BrownCoach G's Teaching TipsCurmudgeonDaily GrindDeTocqueville's DaughterDy/DanExponential CurveGently Hew StoneHistory is ElementaryHuffEnglishLightly SeasonedMathNotationsMildly MelancholyMiss BraveNot All Flowers and SausagesNYC EducatorOrganized ChaosPractical TheoryRight on the Left CoastShrewdness of ApesSiobhan CuriousStories from SchoolTeach for America BlogsTeacher in a Strange LandTeacher VoicesTeacher, I Don't Get ItTeacherLingoTeaching NowThe LineWhat It's Like on the Inside(c) Blogroll11DAnn AlthouseBetsy’s PageBuzzMachineHit & RunI Speak of DreamsInkwellInstapunditIowahawkJames Lileks’ BleatJim MillerJust One MinuteKausfilesMegan McArdleRoger SimonThe CornerThe PlankTim BlairVirginia PostrelVolokh Conspiracy(d) News/InfoBest of the WebCalifornia WatchCity JournalCommentary MagazinePajamas MediaReasonSlateTCS DailyThe OnionWeekly Standard(e) CollegesCalifornia business schoolPennco TechLinksApidexinArtificial Christmas TreesAsbestos Lung CancerChicago CollegeChristmas DecorationsColleges in IllinoisColorado Nursing SchoolsEducatorFacebook EmoticonsMesotheliomaPhlebotomy TrainingScentOnline EducationAccredited Online CollegesBachelor Degrees OnlineBachelor of AccountingCNA Duties and ResponsibilitiesCollege OnlineDay TradingElementary & Secondary EducationEngineering Programs OntarioHealthcare Management DegreeIO PsychologyMassage Therapy ProgramsMedical Billing and CodingMedical Billing and Coding TrainingOnline College EducationOnline Courses AustraliaOnline Courses in AustraliaOnline Criminal Justice DegreesOnline MBAOnline Psychology DegreesOnline Trading EducationOnline UniversityPhlebotomy CertificationPhlebotomy TrainingReal Online Degrees BlogUMATX-Ray TechnicianSiteMeter

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2011 · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress · Log in