Should Children Be Tracked in Math or Science?
David L. Haury and Linda A. Milbourne
There seems to be no simple answer to the straightforward question, "Should children be tracked
in math or science?" The answer depends on whom you ask and what learning outcomes are
considered most important. Studies focusing on student achievement and studies focusing on
equity issues seem to yield different results, and in both cases questions arise about the
educational significance of the findings. Though many members of the education community
consider the practice outdated, or even harmful to some children, many parents and teachers
strongly endorse tracking.
What is Tracking?
Tracking refers to the practice of separating children into different courses or course sequences
("tracks") based on their level of achievement or proficiency as measured by some set of tests or
course grades. This practice has been common in the United States throughout the 20th century.
Even in schools where no formal system of tracking exists, the higher-achieving (upper-track)
children take special courses--honors classes or Advanced Placement classes. By the time they
reach eighth grade, more than two-thirds of U.S. students are tracked in math (Mullis et al.,
1991).
Tracking differs from ability grouping. Ability grouping refers to the practice of separating
children into distinct groups within the same classroom. For example, teachers often form
reading groups or math groups on the basis of student ability. This instructional strategy enables
teachers to meet the needs of individual children more effectively. Children can move from
group to group as they progress, and the whole class receives the same basic instruction.
What Does Research Say About Tracking?
Many members of the education community began questioning the practice of tracking in the
1970s. Studies began to show that minority and low-income children were overrepresented in the
lower tracks, in which they typically received less-challenging instruction from less-qualified
teachers (Oakes, 1990). In addition, some argued that children of all ability levels did no better in
tracked classes than in classes of mixed ability (Slavin, 1990). These findings prompted many
schools to abolish tracking.
More recent findings, however, have caused some researchers to take a more cautionary approach
when considering the effects of tracking. For example, one nationwide study shows that when
children are detracked--that is, moved back into mixed-ability classrooms--the achievement
scores of the children formerly in the lower tracks improve, but those of the children formerly in
the average and upper tracks decrease somewhat (Argys, Rees, and Brewer, 1996).
Another study shows the same net effect but states it in a slightly different way: tracking boosts
the achievement of children placed in the upper track but lowers the achievement of those placed
in the lower track (Gamoran, 1987). The same study also reveals that the difference in
achievement between children in the upper and lower tracks is even greater than the difference
between those who stay in school and those who drop out. One outcome of tracking, it seems, is
a widening of the gap between high achievers and low achievers.
Why Does Tracking Widen the Achievement Gap?
The effect of tracking on achievement may be attributable to classroom environment--there may
be significant differences in the way that children and teachers interact in honors, regular, and
remedial classrooms. For example, one study suggests that upper-track teachers tend to place
more emphasis on reasoning and inquiry skills than other teachers do (Gamoran et al., 1995). The
same study suggests that children in the lower tracks spend more time reading textbooks and
completing worksheets, while those in the upper tracks are more likely to participate in hands-on
inquiry and write about their reasoning process in solving mathematics problems.
Also, math and science courses with higher proportions of minority children are more often
designated as "low-ability" courses than those with lower proportions of minority children
(National Science Foundation, 1996). Among 10th graders in 1990, black, Hispanic, and Native
American children were less likely than other 10th graders to be in an upper-track course in
science or math (Peng et al., 1995). This underrepresentation of minorities in upper-track math
and science courses, and in related careers, is most troubling (also see the article
"Minorities in
Science and Mathematics: A Challenge for Change").
Where Do We Go From Here?
One of the problems in attempting to take a decisive stand on the issue of tracking is interpreting
the array of conflicting results produced by different studies. Some researchers suggest that
detracking will be counterproductive, that it will hurt most those it intends to help (Loveless,
1999). This school of thought asserts that detracking will reduce the achievement of children
removed from the average and upper tracks but will do little if anything to boost the achievement
of children removed from the lower tracks. Supporters of tracking also claim that parents of
upper-track children will likely transfer their kids out of schools that abolish tracking, or they
will find other means to nurture their children's higher achievement.
In addition, some research suggests that tracking does not necessarily have the same effects in all
courses. For example, one study showed that tracking helped all children in certain algebra
classes but not in some math survey courses (Epstein and MacIver, 1992).
Despite all the debate on the issue of tracking, no rigorous, large-scale study exists that provides
a definitive accounting of tracking's costs and benefits. Until such a study is conducted, the best
that educators and parents can do is to decide what outcomes are most important, then use the
most relevant findings to make local decisions.
But one thing is clear: U.S. students, in general, do not graduate from high school particularly
well prepared in science or, especially, in math (see the article
"A Comparison of Math and
Science Education Here and Abroad"). Traditional educational practices that so many
cherish, including tracking, do not seem to be serving children well. Given the evidence that any
small benefits gained from tracking by higher-achieving students come at the cost of increased
barriers to lower-achieving students, the continuation of tracking seems unwarranted. If
consideration is given to the potential benefit of using Internet resources (see
"Internet
Resources") to help kids manage some of their own learning, higher-achieving
students would likely be just as well served by having different assignments within mixed-ability
classes.
So, should children be tracked in math and science? For most children, the answer is clearly no;
for others, tracking has a small, positive effect. But alternative instructional strategies within
mixed-ability classes may hold more promise.
References
Argys, L. M., D. I. Rees, and D. J. Brewer. 1996. "Detracking America's Schools: Equity at Zero
Cost?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 (4): 623-645.
Epstein, J. L., and D. J. MacIver. 1992. Opportunities To Learn: Effects on Eighth Graders of
Curriculum Offerings and Instructional Approaches. (Report No. 34.) Baltimore, MD: Center for
Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 343 715.
Gamoran, A. 1987. "The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities." Sociology of
Education 60 (3): 135-155.
Gamoran, A., et al. Winter 1995. "An Organizational Analysis of the Effects of Ability
Grouping." American Educational Research Journal 32 (4): 687-715.
Loveless, T. 1999. "Will Tracking Reform Promote Social Equity?" Educational Leadership 56
(7): 28-32.
Mullis, I. V. S., et al. 1991. The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990 Assessment
of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Science Foundation. 1996. Women, Minorities, and Persons With Disabilities in
Science and Engineering: 1996 (NSF 96-311). Arlington, VA: Author. (Available online at
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96311/start.htm)
Oakes, J. 1990. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on
Opportunities To Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 615.
Peng, S. S., et al. 1995. Understanding Racial-Ethnic Differences in Secondary School Science
and Mathematics Achievement. National Center for Education Statistics Research and
Development Report No. NCES-95-710. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics; National Science Foundation.
Slavin, R. 1990. "Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best
Evidence Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 60: 471-499.
| David L. Haury is Director of the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education and Associate Professor of Mathematics, Science, and Technology
Education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio .
Linda A. Milbourne is Associate Director of the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics,
and Environmental Education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. She is also the
AskERIC Coordinator for the clearinghouse. |
 Why Is Homework Important?
 Table of Contents
 Calculators in the Classroom: Is the Jury Still Out?
This page was updated on Fri Nov 2 19:14:41 GMT 2001
|
