School Colors Discussion

I don't think perceptions are the only problems with tracking.  It should be a major red flag when the different tracks are significantly stratified by race.  Are all people of a certain race visual learners?  Probably not.  Something else is clearly going on to separate races into different tracks.

Also, the way tracking works now, I believe people are put onto tracks based on overall achievement, not learning style.  Perhaps tracking based on learning style, the way you describe it, would be a better idea.  However, the misperceptions you describe can lead to real, concrete problems of inequality: once people start thinking a certain learning style is "dumber," the teachers might start treating the students like they're "dumber" and thus not teach them as well, thus giving them an unequal education.  I feel like any time students are separated based on a specific criterion, even if the idea is initially well-intended, inequalities are bound to arise over time.

I agree, Asia. When students are put in a lower track not only may they have lower confidence, but other people may seem them as "dumb" when they really are not. It would also be really difficult for students who are in lower tracks to move up because when other people do not expect them to do well in school, they don't.

I really like this idea that there needs to be universality within the English language. Although I am not sure what is should necessarily be, I think there defenitately needs to be a relationship between all of the different ways that people speak in the USA, especially considering that one of the things this country prides itself on is being diverse. If, what people are calling "Standard American English" was not associated with "white, middle class," not only would people be more likely to adopt it because it would no longer be associated with one race and class, but the language as a whole would be more malleable and adaptable to the influences pushed upon it by other languages spoken in the USA. Language is ever-changing and the challenge would be to keep English from changing too quickly.

I agree. Schools should re think the choice to track its students. Tracking assumes and judges the capability of students to perform, which is unfair. There should be an equal chance to learn as well as an equal chance to quality learning experiences. Tracking a lot of times perpetuates a certain track in certain students in the future. For example, a student who is placed in a lower track may think she is "stupid" and then doesn't try hard enough etc., which would lead to being placed in a lower track the next year. 

How does tracking affect the way classrooms run?  I feel that higher-track classes tend to move at a faster pace and use different teaching styles.  Is this more or less effective than teaching everyone in the same classes?  What is the goal of tracking?  I imagine there is an element of "helping the underachieving students improve," but is there also an element of making the high-achieving students speed way ahead of the curve?

I think that one of the problems with tracking comes down to a lack of flexibility. Once a student has been placed on a specific track, it is hard to move from that track. Often, students get placed on a track early in their school career and then find it impossible to move from this track even if it not challenging them/benefitting them. I also agree with Zaneerah that tracking can be damaging to students because there are differences in how students are treated depending on the tracks they have placed in. A common theme of tracking is that there is a lack of student choice. Students do not get to choose the track they are assigned to and at the same time they do not get to decide how they are treated once they have been assigned to a track. I think this is odd because at its core, education is meant for the students. If the tracking system does not take into account the needs, desires, and opinions of students, then what is that saying about the purpose of education under a system of tracking?

I totally agree with Zaneerah's post. She wrote "Tracking brings people down if you know your not that bright and your in a lower class it makes you work on a lower level and but if your in a higher leveled class it makes you challenge yourself and work harder," which I have found to be true. When a teacher has faith in your abilities and believes that you can do the work, it makes you work harder as a student. If you know that no one thinks you can acheive, you may not push yourself to achieve. Tracking plays such an important role in this process, and because it is so hard to move fluidly from different tracks, it sets certain kids up for failure and others up for success. It is a totally unfair process and does not allow students to learn from one another. 

I think that you have a good point about the social stigma of being in leveled classes, but what about the students who really aren't at a high level in whatever they're learning, and who don't feel good enough to be in a class with their peers who seem to know a lot more? I'm just thinking about how it would feel to be surrounded by classmates who seem to understand things so much better. I would be really hesitant to speak up because I would be embarrassed to ask my questions. Are there ways that tracking could work that address these issues of "dumb classes" vs. "smart classes?" How could these social stigmas be erased, while at the same time making sure that some students aren't in way over their heads in classes? 

I agree with your argument that students of different learning abilites can learn from each other when taught together.   This idea you purposed actually has an official name - inclusion.  Inclusion in the classroom is a model of teaching where students of all learning abilites learn together in the same classroom, and learn from each other.  Can you think of any arguments against inclusion?

I agree with the argument that there are benefits to tracking for kids who are performing above the average, but I think one of the issues that is brought up is the process by which students are tracked--especially students who struggle. The standards for tracking in many instances seem vaguely arbitrary and frequently racist (due to unfortunate excuses like stereotypes and cultural misunderstandings). Do you think the tracking system should stay in place but with more appropriate measures and greater flexibility for mobility between tracks? At my high school, at least, there were different tracks, but you weren't entirely bound to them. I was tracked low for math, but high for everything else. But I don't know how hard that type of system is to logistically implement on large urban schools though. I think something that may be lost in tracking average students is the idea of pushing students to perform better. Not every student is going to fall into easy tracking compartments. What about students who would straddle more than one track? How do you deal with those kids? Do you track them higher but worry about them struggling or do you track them lower and worry about them not being pushed to meet their own potential?

It's true that everyone has different learning abilities and tend to end up in classes based on these abilities. It is also good that teachers recognize the different abilities of their students. Do you think students who have "lower" academic ability and are placed in a class that reflects their ability will have a difficult time moving up in acadmic ability?