Tracking Students By Ability Summary

Following the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, US students have slipped from being ranked 18th in math in 2000 to 27th in 2012, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non-English speakers and students with special needs [E. (2011, January 01)]. A 2007 national study conducted by the Center for Education policy revealed that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an estimate of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math while neglecting the other areas of study.

One of the difficulties in identifying the needs of low-income students is the profound cultural barriers which exist that prevent their strengths and deficits from being identified. Children from low-income homes frequently have poorer vocabularies and a weaker basis of the type of knowledge that is frequently considered 'intelligence' on most forms of assessment. A low-income child's IQ may be high, even though he lacks a framework of accepted middle-class knowledge. "In January 2003, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the seeming overrepresentation of minorities in special education and underrepresentation of those students in gifted education. The NRC reported that, nationwide, 7.47 percent of all white students and 9.9 percent of Asian students are placed in gifted programs. Meanwhile, 3.04 percent of African-American students, 3.57 percent of Hispanic students, and 4.86 percent of American Indian students are classified as gifted" (GT-minority identification, 2003, ERIC Clearinghouse). The discrepancy, the NAS believed, could not be solely explained by talent alone but was at least partially rooted in the methods of identifying students labeled as gifted. Biases in standardized and other tests identifying student strengths, combined with prejudices, however unintentional, amongst educators and administrators lead to under-identification of the gifted

For my Field Experience I chose to observe at Krahn Elementary which is a part of Klein Independent School District. After my approval, I was assigned to four teachers and their classrooms. I observed at Krahn Elementary on six Tuesdays between 15 September 2015 and 27 October 2015, and more or less followed the schedule that was given to me by the Assistant Principal Ms. Shannon Strole. From 8:30 am to 9:15 am I observed Ms. Judy Burkes, who is a third grade Math and Science teacher. Her classroom is comprised of twenty students which range from average to below average learners and a student with ADHD and another with autism. For most part of my observation, M. Burkes had been working with her students on fractions and multiple digits addition and subtraction. From 9:15 am to 10:30 am I observed Ms. Lisa Parker who is a Math co-teacher and resource teacher at Krahn Elementary for grades K-5. During my assigned time, Ms. Parker usually joined Mr. Duru’s fifth grade class of twenty three students as a co-teacher and when required would pull out a group of six students after initial instructions from Mr. Duru and would teach them the concepts separately at a slower pace. This particular group of students with special needs was mostly seen to be focusing more and more on mathematical word problems. These students were students with Learning disabilities, behavioral issues and one of them was a student with ADHD. From 10:30 am to 11:15, I was with Ms. Janice Bluhms, who is a

Not to mention, that this has given many disabled individuals chance to a quality education. This case has made congress take a closer look at the individualize needs that is acquired for students by mandating the school to find a program that will help students individual needs in educational system. “Power imbalances between parents and school districts cannot be eliminated, but the mandatory provision of information will go a long way” (Kotler, p.553, 2014). This help secure a people with disabilities a chance for a better future in educational system.

If the schools didn’t make AYP for three years in a row, they had to provide free tutoring and supplemental educational service. Everyone involved felt that the NCLB had unsolved issues. (Randolph & Wilson-Younger, 2012). There are teachers that argue that the testing is not fair with the children that are under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with individualized education plans are being forced to take standardized test on their grade level and the teachers argue that the tests might be way above where these children are academically. This also includes the children who have English as their second language because they are struggling when they are taking the standardized tests. Additionally, Choi, (Aug. 2012) describes how many schools struggle to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the Act called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Pressures on the schools to meet the AYP can affect how each school does their testing and teaching policies. While states have been silent, the question has been whether states have a responsibility to intervene.

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

How far a student can go in life is already pre-determined by the generation before him. Success is no longer made up of solely intellectual ability, but rather if the streets the student walks through is gang-ridden or not, if their parents are absentees, and other conditions in which the child grows up in. Valerie Strauss expresses these concerns in her article, “What the Numbers Really Tell Us About America’s Public Schools” in which she discusses how income levels correlate with students’ success rate which is further accentuated through Kamiak and Mariner High School’s Standardized Test Results. “Motivation, a Major Factor in U.S. Student Test Performance” by Dian Schaffhauser continues this idea of external problems affecting low scores

I am a proponent of ability grouping. I believe that the best way to make progress is taking students and breaking them up into leveled sections so that they can achieve to their highest potential. To me, this is the only thing that truly makes sense. In an article from Newsweek.com entitled America Hates it's Gifted Kids (2014), by Chris Weller, while No Child Left Behind from 2001 did help to improve the scores of underachieving students across the nation, by some degree, we did terrible things for our gifted students. Many of these were left to fend for themselves. Gifted programs were often unfunded in order to handle the needs being created for underachieving students. When our gifted children may someday become our inventors, engineers, and doctors of the future, why on earth is their education and growth not as important as a student with special needs, or anyone else? We build individualized education plans for students who struggle, those with needs, yet we ignore other special abilities. Why can't we build a plan for them as well? Why don't we build a plan for each student, so that instead of a one-size-fits-all education, we provide a track for all students to run on based on their strengths and weaknesses. In this manner, all can continue to grow. There is nothing that says a student who begins in one group cannot move up. There is nothing that says a student who struggles in math couldn't be a high achieving reader. In the Education Week (2004) article on tracking, the major concern against ability grouping has to do with labels. That the majority of students in low level ability groups are poor and minority, and that ability grouping sets a stigma on that particular population. Yet that is where they achieve! By giving specialized instruction at each individual level, all have a chance to grow, instead of lagging further behind, stagnating, or creating a greater challenge when their unique needs aren't met, and further

In 10th grade I transferred from Edmund Burke, a small progressive private school, to Wilson High School, the largest public high school in DC. It was a huge adjustment and totally screwed up my academic progression in math. At Burke one took Algebra I, Algebra II, and then Geometry. But at Wilson one took Geometry between Algebra I and II. Taking Geometry in 10th grade at Wilson would have stuck me firmly in the second lowest academic track for math. Although this was my - and by extension my mom’s - first encounter with tracking, my mom – and I by extension - knew that placement in a lower academic track could potentially detriment my future academic success. My mom knew this because she was highly educated, because she was involved in my academic life, and because her friends were fellow affluent parents. In other words, she knew how to successfully navigate tracking because she was part of the culture of power. And so I persuaded the Wilson administration to allow me to take Honors Pre-Calculus, in 10th grade because I had the cultural capitol to do so (Delpit,

In Waiting for “Superman” a film produced by a man named David Guggenheim addresses the issues that arise in the public school system, and how hard it is for kids to get a good education in the U.S. As Guggenheim quotes “no matter who we are, our what neighborhood we grew up in wanting to believe in our schools, we take a leap of faith.” Waiting for “Superman” effectively identifies failing schools, incompetent teachers, and administrative constraints as the main issues under mining education in the U.S. today. First, Guggenheim reached his audience through its focus on the stories of five children and their families as they apply to their neighborhoods local charter schools. Each child’s parent places them in the charter schools lottery drawing to earn a place in the school.

Walter Fields, a New Jersey parent seek to enroll his daughter into an upper-level math class. Being African American, that proved to be a challenge, when his daughter was denied and placed into a lower-level course. She didn’t get the required recommendation from a teacher to enroll in the class. This sparked fire into Mr. Fields along with his wife, that led to a petition with the school’s principal to grant their daughter access to an upper-level class. By what is called “tracking” in the South Orange Maplewood School District, is a system created to hold many African American and Latino students behind from more advanced courses, even if they receive the grades

While the term seems harmless, the grouping of failing and borderline failing students by qualifying them as special education can set them up for great failure. “Although these students are able to take the standardized tests”, Deming explains, “their scores are not included in the school’s rating”. As a result of these students being placed in special education classes they are not held to the same expectations as their peers, which translates into these students not acquiring the same skills as their peers who are in regular classes. Schools are not only cheating the system but they are grossly failing at risk students simply to obtain an acceptable grading rate by the state. Critics of standardized testing say that this action alone gives the impression of another form of discrimination against poor, minority, and non-English speaking schoolchildren. And it is only a short term and corrupt response to ensure that low scores do not bring down higher scores.

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

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