The Assumptions Of Ability Grouping, Student Tracking And The School Of Education And Information Studies At Ucla

The United States of America has a long and complicated history of segregation and inequality. Though the country has fought fiercely to redeem itself by eradicating the practice of inequality in many areas, there are still some concerns that remain. These concerns are present in the public education system, and relate to the time-honored practice of educators to group and educate students by their ability level. This paper will discuss how students historically have been classified based on ability tracking and grouping, the legal issues created by this classification, and what the Constitution requires in order to maintain equal protection rights for all citizens.

In recent years, legislative mandates, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), have required students to participate in the same assessments that general education students are taking. Although these new, controversial mandates resonated with a lot of people, critics argue that they cause more harm than good. According to Inclusion: The Pros and Cons—A Critical Review, Carl Savich states that the federal legislation on inclusion took the attention away from the general and advanced students with “a concomitant lowering of standards” (Savich 1). However, supporters of these new mandates state that the pros vastly outweigh the cons. According to Assessment and Accommodations, Stephen Luke states that inclusion

While reading the text, Lives on the Boundary I was deeply moved by the exposure of the American educational system’s failure to treat all students equally despite economic and racial backgrounds. The book opens with the author highlighting his personal experience with educational tracking, which is the implementation schools use to place students into different educational paths whether that be the advanced, general or remedial path. Rose (1989) states how tracking affected his education from early on in his life,

With landmark Supreme Court decisions in regards to education such as Brown v Board of Education, which made segregation within schools illegal, one would be inclined to believe that modern schools are void of any inequality. However, at a deeper glance, it is apparent that there is a glaring inequality within public school systems at the national, statewide, and even district-wide level. Such an inequality has drastic results as the education one receives has a high correlation to the college they will attend, and the job they will work. It is in society's best interest that public school systems be improved to equally supplement students with the tools necessary to succeed. While the public school system aims to reduce the inequality within it, they have proven ineffective in guaranteeing children of all races and economic classes an equal education.

For some students, race is a central part of their identity. The struggles they face with it determines the achievements that they can present to the admissions officers. Despite the current ban on the usage of race in college admissions in Michigan, admissions officers should not ignore any part of a student’s unique circumstances, which may be related to one’s socioeconomic status, race, or both. In the article, “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid,” Kozol argues that the ongoing racial segregation and the lack of funding in schools consisting primarily of blacks and Hispanics are putting the poor and minority children at an disadvantage by not providing them a chance to have good teachers, classrooms, and other resources. While universities use scores to assess the academic ability of a student, minorities who attend schools segregated based on race or socioeconomic status may excel at what they are given, have the

the term receivement gap is useful because it focuses attention on educational inputs-what the students receive on their educational journey, instead of outputs-their performance on a standardized test. This refocusing also moves attention away from the students as the source of these disparities, and toward the larger structure and forces that play a role in their education and development (p. 417). Venzant-Chambers (2009) asserted the issue of the Black and White achievement gap must be viewed through other lenses opposed to the single view of Black students cannot perform as well as White students. Venzant-Chambers (2009) offered other avenues by which to examine the achievement gap such as school tracking, examining the

When analyzing the implications a tracking system has on educational outcomes among middle-class students in private schools, Adam Gamoran found that ability grouping is not equitable. This is due to the evidence reflecting that “in the U.S. tracking leads to inequality as students in schools with a tracking system do better than those in general or vocational tracks” (Gamoran, 2000, 235). For example, when students are placed in high tracks, they are more likely to achieve academic success compared to their low track counterparts. Therefore, while high track students are gaining from this system, low track students are at a disadvantage of falling behind (Gamoran, 2000). This ties into the unequal instruction provided to students placed in high tracks versus those placed in low tracks. According to Gamoran, high track students are placed in courses that better prepare them for college and are taught by instructors that spend more time preparing for classes, are more experienced, and inculcate critical thinking skills in their students. On the other hand, low track students are taught through worksheets and recitation and are assigned to instructors that spend more time on behavior management as opposed to actual instruction. However, because

“The socioeconomic achievement gap in education refers to the inequality in academic achievement between groups of students. The achievement gap shows up in grades, standardized test scores, course selection, dropout rates, and college-completion rates, among other success measures” (Ansell, 2017). Typically, when discussing the achievement gap, educators are comparing the academic progress of African-American students or Hispanic students to the progress of white students. More-often-than-not the white students will have more educational achievements than their non-white colleagues (Ansell, 2017). The most widely accepted theory as to why students with higher socioeconomic status (SES) do better academically is high parental involvement, access to economic resources and access to highly qualified teachers (Huang, 2015. Pg.6). Students of low socioeconomic status often live in poverty. This means that the student may not have sufficient school supplies or even someone at home to help him with his homework. There are numerous children in the United States’ school systems that are failing due to the achievement gap. These students are at a disadvantage because the school systems and teachers do not notice or even care about their home life and how it comes into play in their education. It is important for our nation to not only understand the achievement gap but take steps toward correcting it.

We as humans all come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. We have different beliefs, different personalities, and different talents. Each and every student that comes through our doors is different, yet we wonder why we have achievement gaps, when we teach each and every student the same way.

In this passage of No Child Left Behind, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. In amending ESEA, the new law represents a sweeping overhaul of federal efforts to support elementary and secondary education in the United States. This new law focuses on policy and distribution of funds to public schools. Most federal funds under NCLB are distributed to school districts whose populations that are representative of lower economic levels and culturally diverse populations, which consists of African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos. Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act claim that its mission is to diminishing the achievement gap by holding school districts and states accountable, encouraging the use of more flexible educational approaches, and supporting parent’s rights to school choice

The practice of grouping students based on ability limits the likelihood for the totality of the populace to ultimately achieve an equitable education. The longevity of this practice only leads to the creation of gaps in the quality of education delivered to students from racial minority and low-socioeconomic backgrounds (Tyson, 2013). Furthermore, Black males seem to bear the brunt of ability tracking in that they often are tracked, put into special education, and have educators who are ill equipped to educate them, which paints a dismal picture for their future success (Palmer, 2010). The phenomenon of being tracked continuously omits Black males from becoming full and active participants in the globalized community.

Disproportionate identification of minority students in special education is a major concern in schools today. This paper describes the issues in the assessment process with minority students and how we have arrived at a situation where minorities are being misdiagnosed into special education programs. Additionally, several legal cases are mentioned which show numerous actions and rulings that have tried to correct the disproportionate identification in special education. Some of the legal cases discussed include Larry P. v Riles, Diana v. State Board of Education, and Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School, which all significantly impacted special education today. Additionally, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act has enforced

expectations for all students can combat marginalization. The schools included in a study by Ragland, Clubine, Constable, Smith, Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas University (2002) set measurable and high goals for all of its students, while minimizing formal categories and labels. This enables faculty and staff to focus on creating educational opportunities for the students and assess areas for improvement in student and teacher performance. Without tracking and labels, the focus is on the individual, where it belongs, regardless of race or socio-economic status”, ( Carbone II,Steven,2010)

The second assumption tracking makes is that the practice is equitable, accurate and appropriate. The third assumption claims student affect will be negatively impacted if they are placed in inclusive groups with higher performing classmates. The last assumption claims teachers prefer tracking as an instructional strategy because they prepare for and teach only one ability-level at a time. Many studies have been carried out to prove or disprove the effectiveness of tracking and analyze any related social impacts. Following is a review of research for both sides of the debate.

A form of tracking called ability grouping can begin in the kindergarten years (Risley, 1999:4). Ability grouping is put into practice when children are put into groups based on their learning skills. The groups have advantages that include the extra attention needed for children that are not reading at a certain level which can bring them up to standard. The disadvantages include the alienation of students from the other advanced students along with the label of being a slow learner. There are standards within the school system to determine how to track students. Standardized tests, recommendations from the teachers and counselors, and parent and student choices are considered. The criterion appears fair enough. What is hidden from full view is that the