Tracking

I do not think we should eliminate tracking. I think that tracking is an effective way of accomplishing educational equity by providing every student with a class that is set at his or her level. Rather than let their education suffer in a class where the material is too easy or difficult for them, they are provided with an environment where they can handle the material given. While tracking can fuel certain means for teasing among students, attention should be focused on eliminating stigmas attached to certain tracks, and attention should be put towards making tracks mobile and flexible, should students show that they have improved. The issue is not the system in which students are placed in different class levels, but it is in the expectations placed on those students. When less is expected of a student on a lower track, and they are not pushed to their full potential, or vice versa wherein a student on a higher track is pushed too far and beyond their limits, there is an issue. When more focus is placed on eliminating preconceived notions and teaching students as individuals without attached stigmas, then the problem will be touched upon. However, tracking is not the cause of this issue, and eliminating it will not solve the bullying and stigmas.

On Tracking

Competition brings out the best in students. Tracking is a way to spark competition among students to move to the advanced track. The only way for tracking to be effective is if students were able to move up and down between tracks; a tracking system that acts like a caste system should not be implemented because it prevents students who have improved beyond their track from being challenged. Track mobility provides motivation for students to aspire to get into a higher track. It also prevents students from getting stuck in a track that is too advanced or too easy for them. Without tracking, advanced students would be stuck with students who learn at a slower pace than them, therefore slowing down the class overall. This is unfair for the students who can handle more advance material.

Although tracking is an effective tool in organizing students, it should not be implemented until high school. Students in lower grades tend to not be able to handle the differences in tracks as well as older students. Younger students are more sensitive and those in lower tracks could feel bad about their position and have lower self esteem. When they are older they would understand the track system is there to motivate them and give them the help that they need. 

Tracking

In my opinion, tracking is a great idea. If tracking was eliminated, it would not be beneficial to anyone.  Smarter students would suffer because they are being restrained. Without the option for more classes those students would have a hard time improving and would not be able to reach their full potential.  The weaker students would struggle because not enough attention would be paid to them with higher achieving students in the same classroom.  The teachers would also have a very hard time teaching a group of students with skill levels varying drastically.  It would be unfair not to offer more advanced classes to students who do very well in a subject and want to pursue that subject. Tracking may make students feel bad about themselves because they are in lower classes but as I know from experience students can feel bad about themselves if they are on a higher track and feel good about themselves if they are in a lower track, Students feeling bad or good about themselves is just something that happens naturally.  Tracking helps students discover what they are passionate about and what they are good at. It also helps them realize that they might not be as good in other subjects and they might need to work harder, which is something a student should be aware of.  Sometimes its hard for a student to break out of a certain track once they are in it. This is a good thing. First of all, it means that the student was placed in the correct track, secondly it should be hard, that's the whole point. If it were easy to move up to a higher track then we might as well just not have tracking. School should challenge students. It should be hard. That's exactly why we go to school in the first place.

Tracking

I do not believe tracking should be eliminated. I say this because while I was in lower school I was one of the students who needed to be pulled out to receive extra help and I found it to be a good experience. I know that not all children who are on the "slower track" may feel this way, however they should know that if people are offering the extra help, they should take it. If students are falling behind without realizing it, it could cause them more harm as they grow older. It's best to help children when they're younger because they will develop their skills and maybe get back on track by the time they start middle or high school. Tracking should be race blind. It should not be about putting the minorities in the "slower track" only because teachers assume they either do not speak English, or if they do not care to meet with the students separately to see if they really do need the extra support. If someone wants to be an educator to children they should want to do what's best for the students, and what's best for the students who are struggling is for them to be given extra support. Support can be given either by the head teacher or if the school decides to hire an extra teacher who specializes in educational support. 

Tracking

There will always be kids who learn faster than others or are able to retain knowledge more easily than others. The kids that have this advantage should not be held back. The kids who don't should not feel belittled by their peers. Tracking allows for these kids to be separated and have teachers who cater to their needs. That means that the kids that learn faster can have an environment of kids that go at the same speed allowing the class not be held back and move through material. The kids who take a little more time have teachers who will cater their lessons so that they can have more practice problems, more explanations, and more time. This is what makes tracking great, placing kids where they can get the help they need. However, this is not always the case. Some teachers place kids because of race. For example, there may be two troublemakers one white and a minority, a teacher might suggest the white kid should get some help while the minority placed in special ed. This is completely unfair, it is not the problem with tracking it is the problem with the teacher. The teacher should treat their students equally despite of race. After being put in a certain level it is hard for the kid to move up. In some cases the ones placed in the lower levels due to tracking receive less resources than those placed in the advanced level get more resources. I believe this is the problem with the school not tracking. The ones placed in the lower levels should get equal or more help to be able to move up and not have less resources to remain in that level or be moved down. Schools need to give attention to all of their students in order to see them succeed.

Tracking

I believe that tracking should be eliminated. With tracking, there are simply too many negative consequences. Teachers, whether they realize it or not, tend to push students on the standard track less because of preconceived notions made from the fact that those students are on the standard track. In addition, students on the advanced track get more opportunities than students on the standard track. With this, the achievement gap is further widened. But other than this, tracking also, in a sense, encourages stereotyping. Often, we associate advanced track with Whites and Asians, and standard track with Blacks and Hispanics because unfortunately, that is what we see most of the time. And because they are in the standard track, there are certain stigmas associated with them. This becomes a sort of social norm that is ingrained in our minds, which makes it significantly more difficult to change that view.

If tracking is eliminated, it benefits all the students. By putting all the different-leveled students together, the lower-leveled students won’t feel as inferior because it won’t be advertised that they are lower-leveled, like what happens with tracking. And in response to the argument of how the higher-leveled students are being pulled down, that just depends on perspective. There was a study done about student success (in terms of yearly income) in Penn State and UPenn. As one may have guessed, the UPenn students had greater success. However, if only the students that got accepted in both schools were compared, they had equal success. Basically, the students that were “capable” succeeded no matter where they went. Therefore, I propose that those higher-leveled students would not be affected by whether they are with lower-leveled students or not. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they are affected. Then yes, they might be pulled down academically but, they can gain valuable experience helping the lower-leveled students in the class. This goes back to how school should not only be about academics but also social interactions; academic-related things can be learned through a book but social-related things are learned through experience. It is extremely important to interact with people that have different paces because of the different perspectives these people can offer. This creates diversity in the classroom, which is vital in attaining a good education.

Tracking

In the overall topic of tracking, I feel like it's pretty difficult to directly choose one side over another.  I think the idea of tracking isn't really negative, because it does help a classroom run more effectively.  It's pretty hard for teachers to teach students who are all on different levels with a variety of different skill sets, and tracking provides a method to ensure that all students are taught on levels appropriate to their ability.  However, enacting tracking allows stereotypes to be made regarding the different groups, so the main issue is the stigmas that come with tracking.  I think that if tracking can be used with a more regulated system, then it wouldn't be a negative process.  Students should have the ability to easily move from track to track, depending on their view of their own ability.  If students feel they aren't being challenged enough, they should be given the option to move up, and if they feel as if the material is too difficult, they should be allowed to move to a more suitable track.  I know it's really difficult to actually enact a system where mobility exists with such ease, as there are more obstacles in place within the education system, but I believe that if we can ensure mobility among the tracks, then tracking would be an effective way to teach students.

Tracking

I believe tracking is very effective on the classroom level but not on the national level. If the class is divided up into smaller groups ranging from least advanced to most advanced, it makes it easier for the teacher to assess and grade the students based on their abilities. The students also learn from each other if they are in the same classroom and not separated into different environments or classrooms. On the national level, I don't think students have as much mobility to move to high levels than they do in the classroom, so I don't support tracking on the national level. Most of the students that are in a certain category of ability often stay in that category and it isn't fair.

Gracie Gibbons: Discipline and Tracking

            I believe that it would be beneficial to students to eliminate tracking, but only to a certain point.  The helpful part of tracking, in my opinion, is figuring out where a student is in certain subjects and which ones they need the most help in.  This only makes sense in order to give the student the help that they need.  However, tracking has been taken to such extremity today that it has created many problems for students.  The main problem comes from “honors” and “regular/college prep” classes.  While being in challenging classes may be beneficial to the “honors” students, what about the “regular/CP” students?  In many cases, more resources are put into bettering the honors and advanced courses when at least some of the resources should be put into the classes with the students in need.  I have nothing against honors and advanced classes because it’s unfair if say a student excels in a certain class and flies through the work and gets bored for the rest of class.  However, more attention needs to be put into the CP classes.  Also, the stigmas surrounding these classes creates many problems, the main one being a self-confidence issue.  Students that are put into “lower” groups and classes, especially at a young age, can very likely develop a lack of confidence in their abilities and therefore a lack of motivation to excel.  Essentially what I am saying is that tracking should be used to better a student’s abilities, not put them down in some cases.  This is why I believe that tracking should be kept but not to such an extremity as it is in today’s schools.

Should We Eliminate Tracking?

I believe that tracking is beneficial for students. I attended a private, Catholic K-8 school that believed all students were on equal academic standing. Because of this, we moved rather slowly through the curriculum and when I entered high school, I realized the disadvantages I would experience compared to kids who had graduated from honors or advanced tracks. In high school, I was given the choice to opt for advanced tracks in a variety of subjects through AP and honors courses. Hoping to better their education, many students fought for the coveted seats in these advanced tracks because they would be adequately challenged in the classroom environment where every student cared about the subject and wanted to learn more. However, those who were unable to place into the honors track could always apply next year or even next semester if they worked hard enough and those in the honors track could return to the standard track if they were performing poorly. This motivated kids to strive and work hard to move up the academic ladder while ensuring that students would continue working if they were on the advanced track. Also, the advanced and standard track have a diverse student population and no one is pressured to join or stay away from any particular track based on gender, ethnicity, or another factor other than determination and academic ability.

Despite the diversity and mobility with respect to tracking in my school, the system is not perfect. I understand that in many schools, minorities generally tend to stay on the standard track, which is often lacking in academic instruction compared to that of their peers. It is unfortunate that there are minorities who deserve to be in the advanced track but are forcibly kept out by the administration while undeserving whites remain in the advanced track despite their poor performance. Without the freedom of choice, one of our basic and unalienable rights as Americans, our peers experience many injustices that children our age should not have to deal with. However, their academics is not the only thing that suffers; it soon becomes apparent that the standard track often lacks the same opportunities and resources that the advanced track is provided with, and a feeling of worthlessness and inferiority begins to permeate through their susceptible minds. Additionally, teachers of the standard track often hold lower expectations for their students, which does not motivate the students to work hard and succeed but rather discourages students from reaching their full potential and challenging themselves. Before this week's critical discussion, I was limited to my high school's system of tracking in schools, which worked pretty well. Learning about the struggles of tracking in other schools has showed me that it is not a perfect system but if we could steer schools to mirror a system similar to that of my high school, perhaps it would allow tracking to thrive.

Should Tracking be Eliminated?

I think that because "tracking" really describes a huge topic, it's hard to choose just one side of the argument. While some forms of tracking are blatantly racist, like automatically placing minority students in regular classes, and majority students in honors classes, other forms of tracking really are designed to help each and every student regardless of his or her race. I don't feel that the solution to this issue would be to get rid of tracking all together, but instead to take away the negative connotations that go with the labeling of "regular" and "honors" classes, and actually place kids where they will do best. This method will help everyone the most, as teachers won't have to teach to "the middle" of the class, not helping the students who don't understand the material, or those who understood it right away. Furthermore, the "higher achieving" students won't be held back by the other students, and nobody will be intimidated by anybody else. By catering lessons to more similar groups of students, every child will improve and learn more. While students should never be tracked based on their race or socioeconomic status, there isn't an issue with grouping them by ability if it will help everyone in the long run.

Discipline and Tracking-Tommy McMahon

Personally, I'm still split on the whole of tracking. On one hand, it's easy to tell where kids are going, and what mental level they are at. However, the whole thing can be very demoralizing. For example, I myself once had an IEP, since preschool actually, but I never found out until 8th grade. When my teacher told me I needed to take an extra class to help for it, I was distraught. I'd felt as if in that moment, I was no longer normal (It didn't help as she said "Learning Disability" instead of IEP first.). But, that can go either way. It can also give the kids an idea to push themselves harder.

To Track, Or Not To Track? That Is The Question.

Last week's discussion of tracking in the public education system led to one of the more heated and excited discussions we've had in our Professional Development Sessions. Many great point were brought up on either side of the topic, which was the first in which we were able to choose which side we argued for. I found myself drawn towards the pro-tracking side due to what I believe is its benefit to exceptional students and the room it provides for them to stretch their wings. However I could not ignore the plight of those in the slower tracks. Students in those tracks are often feel inferior to those in the upper tracks, and this is not helped by the fact that the lower tracks are, more often than not, filled with minorities while the advanced groups are stocked with rich white kids. So is the answer to this problem to eliminate tracking entirely? My belief is that it is not. Tracking is a tool, but like any tool, if used improperly it can damage the users. So the way to fix tracking and education is to focus on giving students an equal chance and better opportunity in lower school so that when students really begin to distinguish themselves in middle and high school they are representative of their actual ability, not the socio-economic hand they were dealt at birth. The tracks must also be reformed. The same attention and support given to the upper tracks must be given to the lower tracks so that they are operating at the peak of their ability and not left behind because they did poorly on a test. Tracking is not the problem with the education system, the education system is the problem with tracking.

Nia Quinones: Tracking

Tracking should be eliminated from schools to a certain extent.  Grouping children at a young age into “honors” and “normal” classes for all subjects is an extreme form of tracking.  This should be eliminated.  This form of tracking generally puts low-income children into the normal classes.  This is because these low-income students don’t have the resources to be “advanced” enough for the “honors classes”.  (Tutors, Prep Books etc.)    While higher income students are in the honors classes using the same logic.  Statistically speaking, this puts more Blacks and Hispanics into the normal classes, and Asian and Caucasians into the honors classes.    I propose that instead of grouping students, all students should be mixed equally.  Furthermore, money should be dedicated to hiring tutors, buying prep books, spending time giving extra help sessions similar to open hours college professors give, in order to help the slower students progress.  This would guarantee that no student would slow another student down.  More importantly, it would eliminate all the negative effects of such an extreme form of tracking.

I believe AP classes in certain subjects, where students have the choice to take the course or not, are acceptable.  I think there most appropriate in higher-level schools, (high school and college.)

Ava Bridges - Tracking Post

The concept of tracking was a big thing at my old public school in New Jersey.  There were normal CP classes for math, english, history, science, and language.  Then there were the honors classes for all these classes as well.  If you were in a CP class you were considered dumb or average, where as when you were in an honors class, you were considered smart.  In order to get into an honors class you had to have a certain grade average and you needed a recommendation from your teacher in that specific class.  My school was not that diverse so there wasn’t really a racial divide between the two classes.  The concept at Avenues is completely different from my old public school being there is absolutely no tracking.  There is only one history, English, and science class for the entire grade and everyone is required to take that one class. There are different math sections but all the sections are ultimitaly learning the same stuff just in different ways.  There is definitely less of a divide in my grade at Avenues than there was at my old public school and I think that tracking has a lot to do with it.  If you were in the math honors class, it was almost certain that you were also in the rest of the honors classes as well.  It wasn’y very common that a student would just take one or two honors classes.  This created a huge divide in the school because all the students who were in the honors classes would hang together and all the kids who were in the CP classes would hang out together. Without tracking, the school is much more of a community and a place to feel welcome.  

Should we eliminate tracking?

Tracking, although easily misused to further segregate the educational system, should not be altogether eliminated. For the one thing, there is the problem posed as to how to best teach a full class of students of varying (sometimes drastic) ability. If a teacher were to teach to the "middle" student, those with more difficulty would not learn and those with higher ability would become restless. Tracking is an evident solution to this common problem, although it often becomes an excuse to separate based upon race, as in a High School in rural Alabama. Tracking benefits most those that wish to push themselves to become higher achievers, and so there is some merit in that which promotes a tracking system based upon choice. However, to say that tracking in middle/high school is the same as that in elementary school, would be false. In elementary school there isn't often a choice; the children are separated unknowingly by their ability onto an honor roll, which could have the effect of creating a rigid barrier to opportunity for the rest of that child's educational career. Manifesting so early on in a child's life this idea of "superior" and "inferior" intellect/ability could have the adverse affect of making that student accept his or her position, and giving up the choice for hard work and a challenge that they could later on benefit from.
Although tracking has been much abused by our school systems, I can't say that I have not benefited from it, nor will continue to in the future. I think that, if there were a way to insure flexibility and non-biased opportunity, than tracking could effectively challenge every student at a level they could tackle.

Should Tracking Be Eliminated ?

Tracking should not be eliminated. Tracking allows students to be in the class they belong in whether they are succeeding at it or not. While it does create a stigma for those who aren't doing well in certain areas, being in a classroom with students who are all excelling, I believe, would make it even worse for the student who is not doing so well emotionally and vice versa for those who are learning at a fast pace. However, tracking should definitely be implemented differently in order to eliminate the "smart vs. dumb" reputation around the aspect. Yes, there should still be separation of classes based on what a student can handle (in terms of academics) but I believe that the classes with the students who learn at a slower pace, should actually provide that extra help that those students need and also those classes shouldn't be left behind; the teacher assigned to that class should be a dedicated one. In addition, tracking should also be avoided until a student gets to higher level of education when they know what subjects they specifically need help with and are aware of their capabilities. Some might disagree and say that even when tracking is delayed until high school or college, you are still labeled by what you can do when you are a small child; realistically, everyone is going to get labeled by their ability somehow but no child should feel bad about themselves. Instead, similar to GO, children should have that option to be separated by choice if necessary and schools should have more specialists even for kids who are aware of their abilities because it allows them to see that someone is dedicated to helping them catch up, which would boost their self esteem and break that idea that someone is "stupid" if they need extra help. All in all, everyone is better at something than they are at another thing, therefore tracking should not be eliminated in order to meet the needs of these children.

Tracking

Tracking in school is beneficial and detrimental. For certain subjects tracking is more essential than in others. For humanities, in my opinion, tracking is not necessary. I think that people who have different skills in history and English can easily be in a class together, however, in classes such as foreign languages, math, and science tracking is useful. Trying to simultaneously teach someone who is extremely gifted at math and someone who really struggles with it is not going to work out very well. The student who is struggling will probably be more discouraged and learn less than if he or she were in a class with students who are at the same math level as them. Tracking should also be based on each subject so someone who was very gifted at science but has trouble with learning Japanese should be in two different levels for those classes.
  Not everyone has the same intelligence and in an ideal world tracking would not have to exist but unfortunately life is competitive and so is school.  There is a large flaw with our system, that just like everybody else teachers are prejudice. Teachers who select which students go in the gifted classes should be aware if they have biases and if that affects their decisions.  If teachers have different expectations based on race and gender than this might affect how the teacher selects who goes into what tracking level. Stereotypes are what often cause the detrimental side of tracking.

Should tracking in schools be eliminated?

Coming from a student of a school with a set curriculum with no honors classes or AP classes or Special Education classes, I think tracking presents itself as a two edged sword. Personally, I wish I had some sort of track or "education pathway" as some parts of my curriculum are too easy for me, I feel, while other parts are adequate for my level while others are a bit challenging. Tracking can be beneficial in that it gives students something to strive for. It gives the student in the normal track to strive for the honors class, and for students in the honors track to keep on in the honors class. It gives the students a system to work from the ground up, and therefore, proves beneficial in boosting confidence and morale.
Tracking, just as it can heighten confidence, can lower it too, and I see where the flip side in benefits from its elimination comes into play. Students in some cases may be wrongfully placed in a track not suited for them, and it can be detrimental to their academics. There are also stigmas that may inadvertently become attached to these students, which will sour their outlook on their studies and may suppress them from the desire to get out of that track.
I think it all comes down to how each school chooses to do its tracking. As long as it is a properly used system, the students can reap many benefits.

Should tracking be eliminated?

No. Tracking is important to ensure that each student has an equal opportunity to learn. Tracking's main goal should be that students who are in the standard track are provided resources to ensure that they fully understand the material while students that are in the advanced track are provided resources that can challenge them. The problem with tracking is that assumptions are made based on the appearance of the student, it has been shown that students who are minorities are largely put into the standard track whether they have been doing well in school or not. Another problem with tracking is that not enough resources are funneled into the standard tracks, most of the funding going to advanced tracks. This may be because people view advanced tracks as more promising. Therefore, tracking itself is not a bad idea nor should it be eliminated. Instead, schools should focus on having tracking be based off of performance and funding should be equal for both tracks. Speaking from a personal experience, I believe tracking is very important. I have been in a regents class before where I constantly felt held back by students who didn't show they cared for the class nor that they wished to learn at all and it was because of this that I felt I had to learn at a slower rate and repeat subjects because another student didn't understand it. From this I learned to try and be understanding of the fact that students learn at different rates which is what I believe tracking does.

Emily - Should tracking be eliminated?

The decision of whether tracking should be eliminated is tough considering that it can have both a positive and negative impact on a child's education. I learned that in last weeks debate, tracking can be used in a way that benefits everyone. Mei-An brought up a point of tracking being used in our classroom and I hadn't even realized that it was happening. The students would be split up into small groups with at least one adult at each table. This way, the students would be able to receive the individual support they need based on their ability. Seeing tracking being used positively and appropriately, it doesn't seem like it should be eliminated. On the other hand, there are many examples of tracking being used negatively. Tracking can lower students self esteem and create a gap between minority and majority students. Seeing both sides to the tracking, I'd have to say that I'm caught in the middle. The best solution would be to have certain standards set by the government on tracking. That way, the schools who don't meet those standards would have to eliminate it. 

Should we eliminate tracking?

I think that we should eliminate tracking. It causes a burden on people who are in the higher track, not to mention, that they're not good at any thing. Also it causes major pressure if people are in the higher track. Also, the teachers focus more on the higher track students, whilst the lower track students probably don't have any attention from the teachers. The stereotypes are sometimes caused by tracking, the lower track are races that are not as smart, while the Asians and the white people are the people who are super smart. If we eliminated tracking, then we would have the teachers focusing on the students instead of the smarter students. Also, it gives a chance to students to be equal in terms of smartness and learn the same stuff without lacking the attention. So we should eliminate tracking to eliminate the stereotypes and the pressure of it.

Should we eliminate tracking in schools?

I believe that tracking in schools should be eliminated. While the system is meant to have children taking classes based on their proficiency levels, tracking has unfortunately contributed to the issue of educational equity. Instead of helping students learn at a level that is best suited for them, tracking has had both emotional and academic impacts on many students, especially those of color and/or of lower socioeconomic status. White and Asian students tend to dominate the higher tracks while minorities tend to be kept on the lower tracks, missing out on opportunities and better learning environments. Lower track students end up feeling inadequate to their peers and their education suffers. Tracking puts students on a track based on simply just a test or a vague evaluation instead of holistically viewing the individual student and their lives outside of school. When a child lacks the resources to obtain extra tutoring or even a parent to read to them at a young age, that child is already at a disadvantage in the world of tracking and can never reach the same level of another child who may be more privileged and thus on a higher track. It does not create a leveled playing field for all students to succeed. The cons outweigh the pros and tracking is holding the education system back.

Should Tracking in Schools be Eliminated?

In my opinion, tracking in schools does way more damage than good and needs to be eliminated. As we discussed in the critical conversation, there are countless negative repercussions of tracking, both emotional and academic, that outweigh its pros. While tracking in theory provides differentiated and individualized instruction to meet the needs of students, like many other ideas, it does not succeed in practice. Placing students in tracks based on tests or specific instances of academic success is to me problematic because it does not take into account the whole student, and often lends itself to racial stereotyping. An online definition of tracking that I found is: "In a tracking system, the entire school population is assigned to classes according to whether the students' overall achievement is above average, normal, or below average." I feel that labeling a student as any of these three categories is much too definitive of a way to classify a student's achievement. Not to mention the detrimental psychological effects of being labeled as "below average" at a young age. Even if a student is placed into a track and then later gets out of it, the initial act of being placed into that track will still stay with them. As Olivia pointed out, tracking creates invisible barriers for people that may not go away for their entire life. If a student is in the lower track and has the ability to move to the higher track, they most likely will not do it because of these barriers already put in place, and the low expectations that the student has of him/herself due to their placement in the "below average" track. In short, tracking puts students into a box that it is difficult to get out of. It is a system that is outdated and needs to be dismantled. 

Response: Should we eliminate tracking in schools?

Initially, before reading more about tracking, I believed that tracking should not be eliminated. However, after I became more aware of how tracking worked in other schools, I believed that tracking should be eliminated. Although the system of tracking attempts to create a fair system where students are placed based on their abilities, because of how society is, this system is not always fair. Not only seen in one school but multiple schools, tracking can create a sense of discrimination due to different beliefs that may not necessarily be correct. Even if someone of a minority race can be just as smart as someone of the majority, they are usually placed in a lower track for different reasons correlating to their race. Tracking can also cause lower confidence in students placed in the lower track as well as create egotistical personalities in those placed in a higher track. A student in the lower track may feel as if they could never be placed in a higher track and might stop trying overall. Once they've given up hope on themselves, it is hard for them to regain their confidence. Tracking happens at such a young age and I think that kids are too young to be labeled as someone in the higher or lower track in elementary school. In middle school for example, since I was in a higher track, I was required to take high school courses. College was not something I thought about at that time and I wasn't as serious about my grades. Little did I know that it would follow me to highschool, where I am serious about college. Many kids including myself, do not think about how their careers or college life will be at the age of 10. As a result of this, being placed in a higher track is not always a good thing.

Tracking- Nicholas Cancar

Tracking in schools is a highly controversial topic. Many argue that it is an effective system and it sets up a school education of equity catered to each individual. Others pose the response that it ostracizes student from on another, forming a foundation for segregation. I personally believe that tracking should be eliminated from the education system. It cusses more problems than it solves. It really is the foundation of segregation; many students find their own niche of friends, and each niche is categorized. Labeling such a distinction between kids causes them to feel different from one another, and so they lash out in acts of segregation. As far as teaching each student on different levels catered to their individual performance, it allows kids a false sense of security, one that will not perceive in their futures. If we want to develop students into having an open mind, we must allow them to experience real life instances. We must exclude tracking from our educational system.

Should We Eliminate Tracking in Schools

The answer to the question as to whether or not tracking should be eliminated is not simple. While I do believe the tracking system should be updated and major changes should be made, I do not believe that tracking should be eliminated all together. For example, I believe that there should still be "tracks" in school especially for subjects such as math in which it is common for students to be at a variety of levels. I believe that tracks for such subjects should remain; however, there should be mobility within the tracks so that a student can choose to challenge themselves if they so choose to do so. I also believe that the practice of tracking a student based on his or her own racial or socioeconomic standings must be eliminated.

My Opinion on Tracking in Schools

         I believe that there is no exact answer to “ should tracking be used in schools”.  It works well in some situations, and can be detrimental in others. In lower and middle school, tracking can set a student’s social life, lower their self-esteem permanently, and keep students behind academically. Before these students even know who they are socially or academically. Tracking makes students who are placed in lower tracks forced to stay there and never reach their full potential. It also helps students who are originally placed in the advanced tracks over achieve. Once students reach high school they are surer of who they are socially and academically, so the academic construct of tracking can be helpful for students.          Olivia said something during the debate that I agree with fully. If a student has a physical disability the teacher may judge their academic ability based on the physical. The student may be placed in a track that is below their ability. This will change the student’s whole life. This also shows how imperfect the educational system is. Students are not only being placed because of their merit and mental ability. The first impression the student has on the teacher (whether it’s racial, discipline, or physical) can impact where they end up being tracked. 

-- Nicole Stern

My Opinion on Academic Tracking

      Who constitutes the upper and lower echelons of learning should not be based on biased, lengthy tests. A student who is an avid, competent student but a poor test taker, is likely to be placed on a lower track, (and stuck there), despite his or her prior successes in a classroom. This mode of assessment points to the lack of individual attention that our students are granted; they aren't viewed holistically. Practices such as academic tracking substantiate the already profound inequities that plague our broken education system. Though tracking purports to categorize children solely on the basis of their academic capabilities, this categorization actually ends up segregating and alienating children by race and socioeconomic class. This destructive practice must be dismantled.
      In many of our professional development sessions we discuss racial diversity and desegregation. Integration, however, doesn't just have to be associated with race–we can broaden the definition. While schools need racial and socioeconomic diversity, they also need academic diversity. Tracking stunts the emergence of the academic diversity that is crucial to any students' growth as a learner.
    Schools are supposed to provide both academic and emotional support. They are supposed to accommodate their students in ways that don't degrade or undermine their potential. By relegating certain students to lower-level classes, schools and administrators are sending a reprehensible message to individuals whose minds are tremendously malleable. They are stripping individuals of access to higher-level instruction simply because a test doesn't deem them well-equipped enough to handle or deserve it. Schools need to invest themselves in ensuring that their students are receiving the education that will bolster rather than hinder them. Tracking constructs a rigid taxonomy of academic abilities, and halts students' mobility to ascend. The perils are extremely explicit and extremely disconcerting.
   I happen to despise irony. The concept of alienating certain students based on their academic  potential is simply antithetical to the presupposition that all students, regardless of external circumstances, are entitled equal access to fundamental and developmental resources. Academic tracking strips students of the chance to excel. It bars them from their peers; students placed on lower-tier tracks aren't given the chance to learning from and engage with peers of different skill levels. Exposing students to the vast spectrum of academic ability sparks creative and intuitive and critical thinking. Academic tracking is extremely divisive, demeaning, and demoralizing. Schools must preserve and boost students' confidence, show regard for students' self-esteem, and demonstrate respect and patience for students' development as learners. By implementing and espousing academic tracking, they are doing the exact opposite.

My Opinion on Academic Tracking

        I believe that academic tracking, as it is currently implemented in most of our nation's schools, should be eliminated - it harms the self-esteem of students in lower groups, perpetuates socioeconomic and racial inequities, and provides no proven benefits for most of the students involved.  However, I do not believe that the act of splitting students up into groups based on demonstrated ability is wrong in and of itself. I take issue with the way that we currently track students, the tests by which we determine students' ability levels, and the stigmas that have become attached to different levels.

        It is much easier for schools to split up students by ability level - teachers are simply better at lecturing and teaching one subject at a time to similarly "talented" students. However, in order to determine tracks, schools give out tests that measure students' prior experiences or knowledge rather than their learning potential, work ethic, or intellectual curiosity. In elementary school, I believe that it is usually too early to tell which students possess talents in certain subjects - each student comes into the kindergarten classroom with diverse home situations. Some students may have learned to read and add from their parents, while others may have never seen books or they may not know how to hold a pencil. Teachers must do everything possible to take students' prior experiences into consideration. If they split up students by 'ability level' on the first day, they will get a skewed, biased image of the students' talents that continually leaves minorities and girls by the wayside. Putting students in lower groups damages their confidence and stifles their potential to achieve more.

       Instead of grouping students into distinct, rigid groups in elementary school and middle students, we should hire effective, well-trained teachers who are able to maintain a classroom of diverse students - they could organize the students into groups, yet these groups would be fluid and would thus not have the same stigma attached. The groups would categorize students by different learning styles, and students could collaborate with the teacher to decide their group. This would allow every student to achieve his or her potential. In high school, students should have more freedom to take the classes that appear more interesting to them. Naturally, students would pick subjects that they are more 'talented' at - however, this system would allow them to take more initiative in their own education and find more pleasure in learning.

      In order to implement these practices, we must invest much more money into our education system at all levels, to hire more well-trained and effective teachers. We would also need to reform our ideas of 'intelligence.' We need to focus more on 'input' (the tools that we are giving children to succeed) than 'output' (quantitative data like test scores). However, unless we make a conscious effort to change our current system, we will not give every child a fair chance to succeed, and we will thus be actively sustaining the current socioeconomic and racial orders.

My Opinion When it Comes to Tracking

I think the most difficult thing when it comes to tracking is the stigma that's attached to it. Personally, I have been in the "regular" track for math throughout my high school career. There have been many times where in conversation my class was labeled "stupid math" or "the slow math class". Personally this hasn't impacted me because I am comfortable in the class and know that math isn't my thing. The way I defined math as not being my thing wasn't by my scores on tests and quizzes or how fast I could solve a problem; it was the lack of joy and passion I had for it that lead me to label it that. So personally I have not seen the negative emotional impact tracking has had on me personally. I can understand how it can affect people in a negative way and make them feel, "lesser than," but I think this all has to do with the stigma attached. Everyone learns SO differently and tracking, I believe, allows kids to feel comfortable speaking up during class,  to learn at the pace suitable for them and to give them the ability to grow and flourish. When speaking about tracking, many people talk about the lower half feeling lesser but I think tracking especially addresses the lower half. It is so easy for kids to fall behind in class and many kids when falling behind don't speak up and end up missing information and losing confidence in themselves; the goal is for tracking to lessen the chance of that happening.  If we were to eliminate tracking it would set unrealistic expectations for all students because that would be us saying that all students are capable of doing the same exact work in the same exact time frame. Ideally, the talented teachers teaching the highest track classes, like honors or Ap classes, would also be required to teach the lowest track courses. I think tracking is all about the implementation and if implemented in an effective way and in one where a child could easily change tracks when necessary we could be looking at a very effective system.

Vicki's Tracking in Schools Critical Conversation Response

While tracking has its pros and cons, I believe that yes, tracking should absolutely be eliminated from schools. While different from ability grouping, but used synonymously anyway, the social and emotional impact that it has on kids trumps the benefits of it any day. A student is chosen from a very early age of what track they’re going to be put on, and not only does this establish assumptions about the student, but it also limits them to certain opportunities. We have our teachers that determine their abilities at such a young age based off of their own judgment and assumptions which could limit a student’s opportunities throughout their educational experience because it becomes a snowball effect that eventually transcends into college. If a student is placed in the advanced level track in elementary school, this extends into middle school which gives them the opportunity to take classes that then become prerequisites for high school. In addition, the emotional effect that it has on students is so critical because that student then becomes aware to the fact that they could not make it to the higher track because instead, they were placed in the lower one. This placement automatically sends a message to the particular student telling them that they are not good enough academically, which is not only unhealthy for their self-esteem, but unhealthy for their wellbeing in general. One particular experience that I have with tracking is when I took a placement exam to be in an Algebra regent class in 8^th grade. Of course the placement exam was difficult, but I ended up passing and was therefore placed into the class. Although I was content with being in the class, I couldn’t help but to think what would’ve happened to me if I didn’t get in. Moreover, I knew of many people who wanted to get into the class, but sadly did not get in because of one test which then therefore created a cycle against them. Those who were in the class got to take geometry in their first year of high school which then pushed them ahead and gave them more opportunities, whereas those who expressed an interest in the class were held back because of not passing a test, and whose self-esteems were affected, would limit them for the rest of their high school and their further education. Yes tracking can push students on the higher track forward by challenging them and their abilities, but we cannot forget about the bigger system faced against students not on this track.

Tracking in schools - Finley

On the topic of whether or not tracking should be eliminated from our school systems, the answer to this question for me would have to be both yes and no. I believe that, at a young age, tracking can completely destroy a child emotionally as well as on an educational level, but as they get older, tracking can allow students to challenge themselves in topics that they are passionate about. It is completely unfair to place kids into levels before they have a chance to grow into themselves as students. The tracking systems in lower and middle schools put children into boxes and prevents them from pushing their education limits, perpetuating a system where the the kids who start on the bottom stay on the bottom and those who start on the top stay on the top. Although our system claims to be a purely meritocratic system that was created to put children "where they belong", the system is unable to function when children are prematurely placed in one of these levels and then are stranded on a level that they may grow out of. Those in favor of the tracking system preach that it allows for teachers to specialize the lessons for students on different levels rather than just teaching to the middle. While I believe this is a valid point, I think that tracking should only be implemented once a student reaches high school and in all prior grades, classes should be taught as a group with specialization within the class. By doing this, students will grow up in a setting where they are not automatically assumed to be better or worse than those in their class and those struggling will be able to get help from their peers. When students have reached high school,  I believe that the tracking system will allow the students who wish to delve more deeply into certain subjects the opportunity to do so and will also allow those who may not have an affinity for certain subjects to stay at the speed that they are content with.