If you attended primary or secondary school in the United States, chances are good that—at some point—a school official helped shape the trajectory of your academic career by setting you on a certain “track.” Perhaps you demonstrated a talent in mathematics as a young student. As you entered middle school, a teacher or administrator may have placed you in an honors math course, preparing you to take advanced courses before college. Conversely, if you struggled in English, say, you might have found yourself in a lower-level “college prep” or even a “basic” course.
This process of “tracking,”—also called “phasing” or “streaming,”—is the practice of separating students into different classrooms according to academic performance. Public middle schools and public high schools—as well as some elementary schools—across the country have adopted tracking as a means of accommodating the differing needs of students. Some tracking is subject-specific, as in the example above. Other schools separate students into average, above average, and below average tracks that dictate their course level across all school subjects.
The practice of tracking comes with its advantages. Teachers often advocate for tracking because it allows them to provide more individualized instruction and modify lessons for a narrower range of learning levels and needs. Instructors can offer greater support to students who need it without fear of falling behind in lessons, and students can reach their goals at a more tailored pace. For above-average achievers, tracking has been shown to produce significant gains, allowing students to learn more quickly and take on more advanced material. On the other hand, while tracking has long been a common practice in US public schools, many policymakers argue that tracking has led to more harm than good. Officials from the US Department of Education have argued that tracking perpetuates class inequalities and constitutes a form of modern-day segregation, separating Black and Latino students—who tend to be placed into low-track courses—from White and Asian students. Other critics say tracking is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dividing students based on performance may prompt lower-achieving students to think of themselves as inferior to upper-track groups, leading to reduced self-esteem and less academic engagement. Teachers, too, may fail to challenge lower-track students precisely because they have lower expectations.
Since students in separate tracks learn material at differing paces, it is often impossible for lower-track students to achieve upward mobility in the track ranks. Students placed in high tracks, however, not only cover more material but also have greater access to college credit-granting advanced-placement courses and other opportunities, making them more attractive to higher education institutions and scholarship programs. Despite these critiques, schools that attempt to eliminate their tracking programs often face a backlash from parents and community members who raise concerns about adequate support for both high- and low-performing students. Parents and caretakers of special education students, in particular, have raised concerns about their children falling through the cracks in a one-size-fits-all curriculum. Caretakers of students in gifted programs say their children deserve level-appropriate courses. Meanwhile, there seems to be growing interest among parents in having the public education system offer more non-college pathways in addition to college-focused education.
From the 2021 National Ethics Bowl