@DrewDad,
Quote:Tracking went out of favor in the 90s, for good reasons.
That's why the dynamic groupings described in that NY Times article are a better alternative, because the groupings are constantly shifting, within the same classroom, to adjust to each child's level of progress and academic need. But it does involve considerably more work, and effort, and ingenuity, on the part of the teacher, to make that sort of model effective.
Quote:Kids get pigeonholed very early in their development, and there is little mobility between the tracks. Therefore, a kid with a poor home life who doesn't get read to gets put in the bottom track, even though they can very much benefit from a richer learning environment.
And the tracking correlates very well with socio-economic status.
Some kids start school better prepared for it, in various ways, and socio-economic status is a factor there too. That's where early intervention programs, like Head Start, are really important for those kids, to put them on a more equal playing field when they enter school. But now they want to cut those programs--which also help to feed hungry children two nutritious meals a day, as well as increasing their readiness for learning the ABC's. Sesame Street was started for the same reason--to provide some free pre-school learning/instruction via public television, for disadvantaged children, or those who might not have attended a nursery school, or gotten this sort of assistance at home.
I think early intervention programs are still very important for those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. We've got to start closing the advantage gap for these children before they even set foot in kindergarten or first grade if we really want to give them a good shot at future academic success.
But, once in elementary school, I do think that some sort of grouping, even continuously shifting groups within a classroom, makes both common and educational sense. You can't just teach to the middle level of the class all the time without the risk of having the struggling students falling even further behind and the faster ones becoming disinterested because they aren't being sufficiently challenged. At some point you need the type of more individualized instruction that isn't easily delivered to a large group. In some academic areas, computerized learning programs, where each student can progress at his or her own pace, might work, but, in other areas, I think it has to come directly from the classroom teacher. So I see the dynamic groupings, of the type described in that NY Times article, as a move in the right direction.
By the time the students are in high school, I think you do need specialized classes that offer either advanced or remedial work in certain areas or subjects because academic ability levels, and strengths and weaknesses, and interests, are more established, and the students are no longer kept together in a single classroom all day long, with only one teacher. But that sort of thing isn't "tracking" it's more akin to providing an individualized level of instruction in certain academic subjects to those students who will most benefit from it, and who might be disadvantaged by being kept in average level classes for all of their subjects.
When it comes to providing a good quality, general education to a mass and diverse population, one size fits all is not the best way to go.
