Tracking in the public schools

Today's New York Times ("No Longer Letting Scores Separate Pupils" ) reports on an "unusual experiment" in which middle school students in Stamford, Connecticut, are no longer tracked by (some) measure(s) of academic ability. In the article, the local schools superintendent points out that the tracking system has served some students well but not others: “There are certainly people who want to maintain the status quo because some people have benefited from the status quo,” he said. “I know that we cannot afford that anymore. It’s not fair to too many kids."

My goodness, where has the New York Times been? Not in Evanston, Illinois, surely, where educators have been twisting themselves into pretzels at elementary, middle school, and even high school levels to introduce and deepen the "differentiated instruction"-al techniques the experts say are needed in mixed ability classrooms. (In fairness, the article does describe the Stamford school district as one of the "last bastions of rigid educational tracking.") For example, several recent items in the Evanston Roundtable on Districts 65 (here ) and 202 (here) describe and comment on Evanston's efforts to better serve struggling students while maintaining rigorous programs for all.

So, one question is, is this policy change (removing some sort of tracking and establishing "mixed" classes) Pareto improving--leaving at least one person better off than s/he was before, while leaving everyone else at least as well off as before? The super's remarks suggest that his answer is "no"--that is, the policy change will help some students and hurt others. Of course, that could still mean the policy is potentially Pareto-improving--meaning, the "gains" for some outweigh the "losses" to others. So, even if the policy creates some "losers", we might still think the policy is a good one.

Other education experts quoted in the article make a different claim: that establishing mixed ability classes will actually help all students (hence, be truly Pareto improving). For example, the article reported an argument that "research is showing that all students benefit from mixed-ability classes." According to one expert, "[w]e see improvements in student behavior, academic performance and teaching, and all that positively affects school culture."

My views? As often, they are both mixed and strongly held. I think that by middle school age, the range of kids' academic achievements is vast. I don't think "mixed" classrooms serve either end of the spectrum well in terms of the academics. I think the kids who need more challenge and depth will get bored (a problem more easily addressed at home in language arts than in mathematics, I would guess), and I think the kids who need more catching up and enrichment may get overwhelmed and disheartened.

In terms of non-academics--developing social skills, empathy, and so on--I think mixed ability classes might be pretty helpful. Kids do need to know there is a "range" of people out there, with different strengths and weaknesses, and they need to learn to value each person for who s/he is.

I do worry, though, that relying on mixed ability classes throughout middle or even high school could backfire, as students who don't do well in these mixed classes end up being labelled as failures, and students who thrive in them feel somewhat uppity and judgmental--thus reinforcing the feelings of entitlement and privilege that can abound in honors and AP classes throughout our schools.

No easy answers, I'm afraid, for struggling students. As a friend once said in regards to some pathetic-looking houseplants of mine, they needed more--or less--of something. But what exactly is it that these students need more--or less-- of? More hours of schooling and time on task? Better quality instruction (that would be teachers)? Less time playing video games? More high achieving peers? That's what we need to know.