There are many myths of effective strategies in education; tracking is among them. A research report titled "Dividing Opportunities: Tracking in High School Mathematics," discusses the detrimental effects of tracking. Tracking has been said to match students with a suitable curriculum for their teaching and learning (pg. 2). However, tracking has instead created barriers between low-achieving and high-achieving students. Instead of a more suitable curriculum, Affirming Diversity addresses how low-achieving students “are most likely to be subjected to rote memorization and static teaching methods because their teachers often feel that these are the children who most need to master the ‘basics’” (pg. 111).
In the article, they found that there are 270 different mathematics courses in secondary education in only 30 schools (pg. 6)! There are so many different courses, teaching at different levels based on student achievement. Yet, aren’t they all teaching the same topic? I remember my high school offered Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Honors Algebra, Algebra II, Applied Algebra, Honors Algebra II, etc. You were not able to be in Honors Algebra II if you were in Applied Algebra and only students that were deemed exceptional by the teacher in Algebra I were able to be in Honors Algebra II. The only students automatically enrolled Honors Algebra II were in Honors Algebra I. However, the standards and track for my high school is different than another district’s high school. The idea of tracking, especially for systems like in my high school, does not allow students to progress or improve. Instead, students just conform to the level they are at and do not believe they can excel or improve their skills. Tracking was supposed to even the playing field; yet, “perhaps a more appropriate metaphor should be that schooling in America is played on a field laid out on the side of a mountain” (pg. 11).
Check this article out: http://www.promse.msu.edu/_documents/PROMSE%20Math%20Tracking-%20ResRep.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment