Introduction
The educational system of a society is fundamental for the development and ultimate advancement of the entire community. Governments all over the world have acknowledged that educational policies can have a significant impact on economic and social outcomes of their citizens.
It is for this reason that so much emphasis is placed on the educational process by all the relevant stakeholders. Over the past few decades, there has been considerable pressure on policy makers to come up with strategies that ensure that the potential of the students is optimally utilized.
To this end, less effort is put on merely sorting students but rather in helping all students succeed in meeting standards (Stiggins, 2007). The tracking system has been proposed and utilized in schools throughout the world as one of the strategies for ensuring that highest possible performances are attained by students.
Despite the various benefits attributed to the tracking system, there exist conflicting views as to its effectiveness and subsequent desirability in schools. This paper argues that the benefits that are gained by utilization of the tracking system in secondary schools far outweigh the limitations in terms of student development and other perceivable gains.
This being the case, the paper shall set out to give an elaborate discussion as to the benefits and limitations of the tracking system on both the students and the educators. The paper will then analyze the different views advanced and thereby offer a concrete stand as to why the tracking system should be utilized in secondary schools.
Brief overview of the Tracking System
In educational systems, tracking involves the separation of students according to some measure of cognitive ability that they exhibit (Andersen & Taylor, 2005; Lucas 1999; Oakes 1985).
The underlying ideology behind tracking is that students have varying cognitive abilities and by grouping them, educators can effectively gear their programs to best meet the ability level of the students in question.
As opposed to mixed-ability teaching which places the different ability students in the same environment, a tracking system of education places homogeneous groups together so as to facilitate the provision of a more specialized teaching for each group according to its specific needs.
The tracking system is evidently structured around Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. In this theory, Bandura proposes that a person’s attitude and abilities play a crucial way to the way they perceive situations and consequently respond to them. The differing abilities in students will consequently lead to different perceptions and hence varying cognitive abilities.
Tracking system can be implemented in various modes to suit particular institute but the fundamental principle behind any tracking system is the dividing of students into varying groups based on their aptitude (Chavous, 2004).
One of the implementations of tracking involves the allowing of “migration” of students from the various tracks. As such, students can be placed in the high ability class in one subject but be placed in the average or low ability class of another subject.
A different implementation involves students being placed in the same class all through the year. This is the tracking system that is predominantly exercised in most schools mostly due to the relative ease of implementation and achievable uniformity (Smith & Pellegrini, 2003).
Benefits of the tracking system
The learning process is at best challenging due to the unique characters of each individual students. This process is made even more daunting when students exhibit large differences in their learning abilities.
Tracking presents an opportunity for all students to benefit by allowing teachers to present material to students at a level that is most appropriate to their ability.
A study conducted by Duflo, Dupas & Kremer (2009) articulated that lower-achieving pupils were particularly likely to benefit from tracking since tracking allows the teacher to tailor instructions to best suit the class composition.
This practice is beneficial to the lower-achieving students since the further off a student’s ability is from the material the teacher presents, the lower the likelihood of the student benefiting from the material presented.
In a mixed ability class, the teachers are almost always inclined to present material that is at par with the level of the high achievers. This is detrimental to the development of the lower achieving group who will fail to relate to the material presented thus further lowering their grades.
In all educational systems, teachers play a pivotal role in the performance of the students. The attention and effort that the educators put into the educational endevour spells out the difference between excellent and poor performance by the students.
Duflo, Dupas & Kremer (2009) affirm that in most countries, teachers have incentives to focus on the strongest students, mostly at the expense of the weaker ones.
This creates a situation whereby teachers structure their programs with the needs of the higher-achievers as the central focus. Tracking system can help curtail this trend by forcing the teachers to give equal focus to the lower and middle-achievers.
This improves the student’s performance due to the level of motivation and undivided attention provided by the teacher (Kuhn, 2007).
Peers relations have always been assumed to play a role in the development of students especially in high schools. As such, investigations into peer effects in the classroom as a result of tracking systems have been of importance to the policy makers in the educational field.
Research carried out by Hoxby and Weingarth (2006) in which re-assignment of pupils to schools in Wake County was used to estimate models of peer effects revealed that students benefited mainly from being placed together with homogeneous peers.
This is contrary to popular belief which holds that students are derive the most benefit from being placed in a heterogeneous class setting. These benefits are not solely attributed to the student’s relations with each other but are also attributed to indirect effects that arise through the teaching practices that are employed by the teachers (Zimmer, 2003).
Homogeneous groupings that are a result of tracking always have high expectations on the students. As such, all the programs are structured to best exploit the potential of the students (Chavous, 2004). Tracking provides the most efficient means by which human resources are optimally utilized in the school environment.
High-achieving students are allowed to excel in courses that are challenging in nature without the limitation that would be imposed on the if they were obligated to move at a uniform pace with low achieving students. Low achieving students on the other hand are presented with material that is well suited for them thus increasing their chances of success.
Students in high schools are highly impressionable and their self-esteem is wavering at best. In a mixed-ability class setting, the low ability students are pitted against the high achieving students. This forces the students to compete on the same platform despite the evident superiority of the high achieving students.
This will lead to a reduction in the self-esteem of the low achieving students when they compare their performances with the high achievers (Damon, 2007). This is an undesirable effect that should be avoided at all costs.
Tracking presents a means by which to ensure that the students self esteem remains relatively high since he/she competes with students of roughly the same ability as himself/herself.
Disadvantages of the Tracking system
Key to the implementation of the tracking system is the establishment of a basis on which to group the students into their various tracks. Assessment tests are the means by which grouping are made.
The explicit role of this assessment is to identify and subsequently highlight the differing capabilities in student learning abilities so as to grade them as per their achievements. Stiggins (2008) suggests that this grouping has a negative effect on the low achieving students.
Whereas high achieving students are propelled even further by this assessment which divides students into winners and losers, low achievers feel alienated and succumb to hopelessness up to the point where they stop trying to make a difference in their academic lives (Nichols & Berliner, 2008).
Opponents of tracking argue that tracking has an overall negative impact for the children who are placed in the lower tracks. Salerno (2007) argues that their academic growth and development is inevitably curtailed by this placement resulting in lower probability of the children in this tracks taking more advanced courses in futures.
In addition to this, the students in the lower tracks often develop lower self-esteem and a general feeling of hopelessness about their future (Jimserson, 2006; Glass, 2002; Oakes, 1985).
This is as a result of the “labeling effect” whereby the students are either consciously or subconsciously labeled by their peers and teachers based on the track to which they belong.
Tracking system leads to the uneven distribution of human resources in the school environment. Research shows that low track classes are on a frequent basis taught by teachers who possess less experience and expertise as compared to high track classes (Jimserson, 2006; Oakes, 1985).
Low and middle achievers are therefore denied the chance to benefit from teachers who possess more experience and more subject-area expertise as these teachers are moved to the high-achievers classes. The possibility of the low track students improving in performance is thus significantly lowered by this practice.
In addition to this, the material in the curriculum offered to low track students tend to be downgraded so as to “be at the level of the recipients”.
This explicit low expectation on the ability of the students by the teachers as exhibited by the curriculum offered leads to the students having lower confidence in their abilities thus purging them into the whirlpool of failure.
Levinson, Cookson and Sadovnik (2006) authoritatively state that tracking out rightly disadvantages low achieving students by significantly limiting their opportunities to learn by providing them with an inferior curriculum.
In a society that is continually striving to do away with segregation of its members, opponents of tracking have accused it of furthering segregation in the society. This arises from the fact that in the tracking systems, there is a notable overrepresentation of minority students and low income earners in the low-achievers tracks.
Hallinan (2006) notes that in schools in the United States, black students and students with Spanish surnames were overrepresented in the lower tracks. This pointed to a segregation of sorts in terms of social class and race by the tracking system.
Loveless (1999) asserts that tracking confers privileges to students who hail from middle-class and wealthy backgrounds mostly at the expense of those from low-income earning groups.
However, an unbiased look at the tracking system reveals that minority and low-income students are assigned to the lower tracks as a result of their lower achievement scores other than any other malicious aims as the opponents of tracking seem to suggest (Levinson, Cookson & Sadovnik, 2002)
As has been articulated in this paper, tracking system implementations vary. A major disadvantage of tracking may occur under a tracking system where students are allocated on the basis of their ability other than preference (Silberman, 1982).
Such a system has a negative effect on talents and preferences of the students and may lead to students being forced to go through programs with which they have little interest. Grant and Murray (1999) suggest that this form of tracking leads lower-class students into programs of studies that inevitably lead to low-status jobs in the future.
Discussion
It is in the best interest of the society for all students to receive the best form of education that can be availed to them. The tracking system has been implemented as one of the means for furthering the educational goals in schools all over the world.
From the above arguments, it can be seen that tracking is at best a contentious issue with differing views being held concerning the effectiveness or lack thereof of the system.
Glass (2002) concedes that discussions regarding tracking in the educational system are often sidetracked by personal sentiments by both advocates and opponents of the system therefore leading to lack of a rational basis for agreement or disagreement.
Both the arguments for and against the tracking system do present some valid points that much be given due consideration before a decision is reached upon. Smith and Pellegrini (2003) suggest that on the whole, there is no decisive advantage for either mixed-ability teaching or tracking system.
As such, none of the two methods can purport to be invariably superior to the other. However, the discussions presented in this paper highlight that there is overwhelming evidence as to the benefits of tracking systems in high schools.
We can therefore authoritatively state that tracking is beneficial to the student’s development in high schools. This is in line with the assertion by Borman and Hewes (2002) who declare that there is a visible positive short-term and long-term impact of tracking on students across the entire achievement platform.
Despite the differing views by advocates and opponents of tracking, there is agreement by general consensus that not al students should be mixed together in the same classes (Andersen & Taylor, 2005).
This position alludes to the fact that whereas the tracking system in its present form may not be flawless in nature, people across the divide do agree that there is need for some form of tracking of students so as to ensure that optimal performance in class is achieved.
A research by Figlio and Page (2002) show that there is no evidence that tracking harms lower achievement students as is advanced by most of the detractors of tracking system.
Nevertheless, Smith and Pellegrini (2003) advocate a form of tracking whereby students are first taught in a mixed-ability class and are subsequently moved to a more homogeneous grouping when the different rates of progress are clear cut.
It can be observed that that most of the disadvantages associated with tracking come as a result of allocation of the less experienced teachers to the low-track classes. These disadvantages can be offset by providing equal opportunities to the students in all the varying tracks.
Having done this, the demerits of tracking can be reduced to a bare minimal thus greatly benefiting the students and eliciting the support of all the relevant stakeholders. Hallinan (2006) concedes that the tracking process has undergone a discernible maturation over the years.
The attributes that made tracking inefficient and disadvantageous are being changed and the system continually tweaked. It is not inconceivable to project a future whereby the tracking system will be the most efficient educational system for the high school student’s development.
Conclusion
This paper set out to give a detailed discussion as to whether the tracking system is beneficial or not to the development of students in high schools.
Considering the numerous benefits that this system presents to all the students, I would argue that the tracking system is hugely beneficial and therefore should continue to be implemented in all the high schools.
This paper has presented both the merits and demerits of the tracking system so as to enable one to arrive at an informed conclusion. Like most other systems in existence, tracking is a double edged sword that can lead to both positive and negative results.
A proper implementation of the system that aims at reducing the various inherent disadvantages of the system can be most productive for the students involved and the society at large.
References
Andersen, L. M. & Taylor, F. H. (2005). Sociology: understanding a diverse society. (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Borman, G. D. & Hew, G. M. (2002) The Long-Term Effects and Cost- Effectiveness of Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Winter, 24(4), pp. 243-266.
Chavous, P. K. (2004). Serving our children: charter schools and the reform of American public education. Capital Books.
Damon, C. (2007) Selective Schools and Academic Achievement. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Working Paper No. 3182, November.
Duflo, E., Dupas, P. & Kremer, M. (2009). Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation
Figlio, D. & Page, M. (2002). School Choice and the Distributional Effects of Ability Tracking: Does Separation Increase Inequality? Journal of Urban Economics 51: 497-514.
Grant, G. & Murray, E. C. (1999) Teaching in America: the Slow Revolution. Harvard University Press.
Glass, G. (2002). Grouping students for instruction. Arizona State University. Web.
Hallinan, T. M. (2006). Handbook of the Sociology of Education. Springer.
Hoxby, C. & Weingarth, G. (2006) “Taking Race Out of the Equation: School Reassignment and the Structure of Peer Effects.” Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.
Jimserson, L. (2006). The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools. The Rural School and Community Trust
Kuhn, D. (2007). How to Produce a High-Achieving Child. Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 54: 757-763
Levinson, D., Cookson, W. P. & Sadovnik, A. R. (2002). Education and Sociology: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis.
Loveless, T. (1999). The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy. Brookings Institution Press.
Nichols, L. S. & Berliner, C. B. (2008). Testing the Joy out of Learning. Educational Leadership vol. 41: 218-220
Salerno, K. (2007). The Damaging Effects of Tracking on Student Potential in Texas Public Schools. University of Michigan.
Silberman, H. F. (1982) Education and Work, Part 2. University of Chicago Press.
Smith, K. P. & Pellegrini, A. D. (2003). Psychology of Education: Major Themes. (3rd. ed). Routledge.
Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment through the Student’s Eyes. Educational Leadership, vol. 40: pp. 214-217.
Zimmer, R. (2003). A New Twist in the Educational Tracking Debate. Economics of Education Review 22: 307-315.