Tracking divides students into different academic ability levels (low, middle, high tracks) in secondary schools. There is debate around whether tracking improves achievement and is equitable. Some research finds tracking improves achievement for higher and middle ability students but not for lower tracks, while other research finds no benefits or disadvantages for any groups. Placement decisions are considered fair when based on academic performance but unfair if other factors like race, gender or socioeconomic status influence placement. Tracking is also considered inequitable as it can limit curriculum access and college opportunities for lower tracks which often have more minority and low-income students. Teachers must consider these issues and their professional responsibility to practice fairness for all students.

1. TRACKING:
U.S. SECONDARY
SCHOOLS
Jess Hotmire

2. What is tracking?
 Students are divided into academic ability
levels in each grade (ie. Low, Middle, High).
• LOW • MIDDLE • HIGH

3. Questions
 Does tracking improve achievement?
 Is tracking equitable?
 Is placement fair?
-------------
 Professional Responsibility: “Teachers are professionals
who must recognize that they are in a unique and
powerful position to influence the future of their students.
It is imperative that teachers practice the highest
standards of integrity, honesty, and fairness.”
(ODE Standards for Ohio Educators Handbook p. 37)

4. Does tracking improve achievement?
 YES
 Teachers - student’s needs can be met according
to their academic ability.
 Motivation and pace of instruction increase in
tracked classes.
 Higher ability students = Yes
 Middle ability students = Yes
 Lower ability students = Yes
(Agne, 1999; Zimmer, 2003; Venezia & Kirst, 2005)

5. Does tracking improve achievement?
 NO
 Teachers – like tracking to make teaching easier
and/or don’t have skills to teach differentiation
 Higher ability students = Yes
 Middle ability students = No difference
 Lower ability students = No
(Oakes, 1987; Hallinan, 1991; Ansalone, 2010)

6. Is placement fair?
 Yes - when course placement decisions are
based on student’s academic performance.
(Archibald, & Keleher, 2008; Bernhardt, 2014)
 No - teachers base placement on multiple
factors such as beliefs about student’s
feelings, race, gender, SES.
(Oakes, 1987; Hallinan, 1991; Mayer, 2008)

7. Is tracking equitable?
 NO
 African-American students and low SES generally score
lower on standardized tests so less chance of high track
placement
 Students do not have access to the same curriculum.
Higher tracks have more in depth curriculum so they get
college advantage.
(Hallinan, 1991; Oakes, 1987; Ansalone, 2000)
 YES
 Tracking had nothing to do with race or SES
(Agnes, 1999; Loveless,
1999)
 Tracking did not impact college plans especially if the
school provided college admissions information

8. Critique
 Rules and standards dominate.
 “Schools were established to serve a high
moral purpose, to prepare the young to take
their place in society” (Starratt, 1991, p. 191)
 What practices/standards are unfair or
discriminatory?
 “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere” (King, 1963, p. 1)
(King, 1963; Starratt, 1991; Giroux, 2002)

9. Ethic of Care
 Care is: developing interdependent relationships to
sustain a sense of community and to advance the
growth and well-being of all participants in the
relationship (Beck, 1994)
 Activities of caring: Receiving, Responding, Remaining
(Beck, 1994)
 Care is: a process of actualization with the ingredients of
Knowing, Alternating Rhythms, Honesty, Trust, Humility,
Hope, Courage (Mayeroff, 1995)

10. Care
 Teachers impact student success from an
individual or whole class view point.
 Teachers who care make learning the focus of
education and impact learning more than any
other factor.
(Lumpkin, 2007; Noddings, 1992)

11. How Shall We Govern
Ourselves?
Consequential Non-
consequential
Teleological Deontological
“Greater Good” “Rule/Duty
Bound”
Utilitarianism Liberal Egalitarianism
Libertarianism
Benefit Maximization Equal
Respect
Reflective
Equilibrium

12. So . . . what do you think?
Consequential Non-
consequential
Teleological Deontological
“Greater Good” “Rule/Duty
Bound”