Return to Student Tracking
If you are like me, a baby boomer, then you probably remember the small groups in which we were placed in grade school, especially for reading. These groups were identified by various names such as "Bluebirds" and "Redbirds" allowing the teacher to group students according to reading ability. Years later in my high school there was only one class that was different from the other classes and that class was known by us as the "Brain Class". At Loyola High School this class was made up of the best and brightest students and the guys in this class were guaranteed admission to college as sophomores as a result of their advanced work .
Today we have students in what are now called "gifted and talented" programs at one end of the educational spectrum and the special education classes at the other end. In the middle is everyone else regardless of achievement, skills mastery and actual performance. It is this middle group that makes up the vast majority of all classes in which most students are placed and most teachers teach. These classes will have students who will be reading three to four years above and below grade level. Some students in these classes will be disappointed if they do not earn "A" grades and others will celebrate if they achieve a "D-".
For some reason the practice of grouping by ability or tracking fell out of favor and became educationally incorrect. Whereas homogeneous grouping is desirable for the gifted and the educationally handicapped it is not a placement process for everyone else. As a result teachers are forced to modify their instructional delivery by offering differentiated instruction; that is, teaching to multiple groups with varying ability levels. Furthermore teachers must accommodate many individual students with specific learning difficulties that require individualized instruction. This is to be accomplished in a class with 30 or more students with no other adult assistance. You see, administrators know that "redbirds" and "bluebirds" still exist; but refuse to divide students into manageable groups. Instead teachers are now required to set up subgroups in their classes to effectively deal with these vast differences in ability.
The result of this departure from tracking is that now most teachers spend more time dealing with issues of how to teach and classroom management issues rather than what to teach. Teachers must be aware of and recognize the cultural diversity, socio-economic background as well as the level of skills mastery of their students. It is understood and accepted that the educationally handicapped need to be isolated in special education classes to succeed. Additionally, the gifted and talented also allegedly achieve more when placed in homogeneous classes; but its baffling that these same placement considerations are denied to the vast majority of regular students. Consequently the end results, namely the achievement levels, actual grades and of course standardized test scores of the regular students are all over the place.
It is generally believed that nothing in education is ever really new; but a repackaging of something that has previously been done. If this be true, then why not bring back the "Redbirds" and "Bluebirds"? Let us begin to place regular students in classes by achievement or ability just like the gifted and talented and the educationally handicapped are now placed. Let us begin to give the regular students the same educational advantage that these other two groups of students now enjoy. Let us give the teachers of these regular students the same teaching advantage that the teachers of the other two groups of students now experience. Tracking once worked and still works for a few so why not allow tracking to work for everyone? We really have nothing to lose.
Next Post: Safe and Secure Schools
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I just had dinner with an old friend of Denise's who is a professor at Georgetown where she teaches an education class. This year, half her students were new to the field and half were far into the course work. She found it very difficult to teach without boring the one half while bringing the other half up to speed. I asked her what she did, and she said she taught to the middle which pissed off everyone and it was a horrible semester. I think that is what you're speaking to. I always found practically that if you have 1/3 lower achieving and 2/3 on or above level you could teach to the higher group and the others, with support, come right along. I remember one year early on on teaching where I had groups and one was The Turkey Vultures.....what's with the bird metaphors?
The nuns at St. Rita's Parochial School liked colorful birds. It was a situation where big girls taught little girls and tolerated boys.
The only criticism I could imagine with tracking is fluidity. I think the fact that red birds stayed red birds and blue birds stayed blue birds is what soured the idea. A knucklehead in the lower medium class will be behind the hard worker in the higher medium class by year's end. If the knucklehead finds religion over the summer he is still stuck with the knuckleheads because, even with a new and improved work ethic, he has no opportunity to catch up on content. There would have to be something in place to allow the transition from one group to another... and don't say summer school. I am not working more than 181.5 days no matter how bad the knuckleheads want to improve.
I would agree that once classified a Redbird one does not always have to stay a Redbird. Maybe I should have used horses and then I could have said that one could be a horse of another color ! I think that with the educational dependence on computers and computer programs it would be fairly easy to monitor individual student progress (or lack there of) and advance or demote at the quarter or semester.
Post a Comment