To Track or Not To Track?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
To Track or Not To Track?
2
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 3:06pm

I saw this debate on FB from the "We Are Teachers" Group.  I thought it might be fun to bring over here.  There was a posting of an article from the Atlantic (sorry, I am bad at posting links) that said tracking is best for all.  Most people, including me, agreed.  Too often, I have seen desperate special ed measures for legions of ill-performing students, while the gifted kids are constantly neglected.  At least if we have ability grouping, that sort of thing will happen less often.  It would hardly make a dent in the current education process, but I do think it is a place to start.

One comment I have to start with is this: when I was in HS in the late 80s, we were tracked A-B-C.  I never saw a C class.  I was in one B class, and all the rest A.  The only difference I could see between A and B was not ability, or a plethora of gifted students.  It was discipline level.  In B class, the teacher was constantly putting out fires and could never really teach us anything.  I resented being in that class, not just because my writing skills justified A classes, but also because those students kept wasting MY time.  The next year, I signed up for A and was not contested, so just went with it.  (Senior A English had issues too.  The teacher was an alkie who also taught us nothing.  Perhaps the administration thought he wasn't up to the challenge of behavior problems?  Who knows.)  After wasting two years not learning anything in upperclass English, I went and passed the English AP exam on pure talent (I spose.)  I digress...

Express!

Beth "Petrouchka"

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-04-2000
Sun, 04-07-2013 - 2:50pm

Sorry I've been MIA but the site would not let me log in to post. I've been getting an error that I was not authorized to access the site. Anyway, tonight it started working so here I am!

I'm not sure exactly what you experienced, but in the past I worked in a school where we tracked kids by achievement, not ability. The highest kids were workers with higher aptitude in the subject. They did well according to our testing and gained more than a year and a half grade wise . Some were in the highest group for math but not reading for example. We fit their needs and ability along with what they had accomplished. It worked well. The groups were also flexible. They could move up or back if they needed to.

Sherry
Community Leader
Registered: 07-16-2001
Sun, 04-14-2013 - 2:28pm

I want to do this at my school, but we have one teacher who refuses. She's all about it hurting their self-esteem. I think giving those low kids work they can't do hurts their self-esteem more, but she's set in her ways. So we don't do it. Two more years and she retires!