Abstract

The issue of tracking students in public high schools is investigated in the light of the claims and counterclaims of its proponents and opponents. The underlying educational philosophy of each group is surveyed. Ethical issues involved are discussed using the principles of benefit maximization, equal respect, and equal treatment. Costs and benefits of maintaining or eliminating tracking are compared. Discussion is limited to the tracking of high school students without exceptional physical, mental, or emotional needs.

Outline

• Brief Historical Overview
• Framing the Issues
• General Discussion
• Discussion of Ethical Issues
• Recommendations
• Conclusion

Brief Historical Overview

1886 Andrew Carnegie: " The free common school system of the land is…the greatest single power in the unifying powers which produce the American race." Children from various ethnic backgrounds "are transmuted into republican Americans and are made one in love for a country which provides equal rights and privileges for all her children" (p. 95)

1890 Charles Eliot: (paraphrased) No state in the union possessed a system of secondary education. The function of the secondary school was to fill the gap between the elementary school and the college to prepare students for entrance into college. (p. 100)

1908 Charles Eliot: "Here we come upon a new function for the teachers in our elementary schools and in my judgment they have no function more important. The teachers of the elementary schools ought to sort the pupils and sort them by their evident or probable destinies." (p. 108)

The preceding quotations (italics are mine), taken from The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education (Perkinson, 1995), illustrate the evolution of views on public school education in America between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. The focus of education moves from unifying Americans and providing equal rights and privileges, to preparing (some) of them for college, to sorting students according to their probable destinies. Today, at the start of the twenty-first century, many high schools still sort their students in the process called tracking. In 1999, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) recommended that "the curriculum … expose students to a rich array of viewpoints, perspectives and experiences" but did not recommend a tracked or untracked setting (eionline). However, a recent survey for the NASSP does review studies that point to higher levels of achievement by academically talented students placed in accelerated classes (Rogers, 1998).

Framing the Issues

Since the 1980’s, the practice of tracking has frequently been challenged (Lockwood and Cleveland, 1998). The questions become: Should tracking be eliminated in public schools? Is tracking moral? If the answer to the second question is no, then the answer to the first must be yes. We can also compare the costs and benefits of tracked systems to untracked systems to determine which is a better method for spending the funds available for the education of high school students.

To narrow the focus of this paper, discussion will be limited to policies of tracking of high school students without special and severe physical, mental or emotional needs. It will consider only traditional (not charter) public schools.

The case for eliminating tracking is presented by Anne Wheelock in her book, Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America’s Schools (1992). Wheelock is a child advocate for the Massachusetts Advocacy Center. Tom Loveless defends tracking policies in his book, The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy (1999). Loveless teaches at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In the following discussion, unless otherwise stated, Anne Wheelock will represent all tracking opponents and Tom Loveless will represent all tracking proponents.

General Discussion

What is tracking?

Tracking can be defined as the placement of students into courses based on their performance in standardized achievement tests and/or IQ tests and in previous courses in the same discipline. Large numbers of public high schools in the United States track their students (Lockwood and Cleveland). Students are placed into separate curricular programs based on some expected outcome. Tracks can be identified by ability (high, average, or low), or by the kind of preparation they provide (academic, general, vocational). This definition is generally acceptable to Tom Loveless, especially since he finds great flexibility in today’s tracked high schools. Wheelock finds rigidity in the select and sort function of tracking. She is concerned that a student is given a label in junior high school that s/he will carry through the remaining school years. She contends that tracking is especially unfair to poor and minority students who, in disproportionate numbers, are placed into low track classrooms where they receive a poor education from the least experienced teachers.

Why is tracking perceived so differently by the opposing sides?

Functionalists and conflict theorists as described by Feinberg and Soltis (1999) see the purposes of schooling in very different terms. Tracking proponents, like Tom Loveless, take a functionalist view of the educational process. Schooling is supposed to socialize students, to adapt them to the society in which they live. Functionalists see the high school years as a preparation for some specific future undertaking (college, business, auto repair). They expect students to acquire the skills that will make them productive citizens. If this is so, say Anne Wheelock and other opponents of tracking, then some students are being shuttled into the lowest levels of future endeavors by being placed in the lowest tracks. Many of these students come from racial or ethnic minorities and/or have low socioeconomic status. Wheelock sees the practice of tracking in conflict theorist terms. Her colleague, Jeannie Oakes (1997) states that American society was built on a revolution based on the ideology of liberty and equality but functions in a society that is driven by wealth and power. Note the similarity to the Marxist view that the privileged classes are somehow pushing these students down or "keeping them in their places". Opponents of tracking expect the public high school to be a place where all students receive a common education that will prepare them to live and thrive in the "real" world. They expect students to experience intellectual, racial, and economic diversity in the high school setting.

Carrying this expectation to its logical conclusion could mean that a largely Caucasian, economically prosperous district would have to team up with a more racially and economically diverse district to provide its students with a complete high school education. And the reverse could also be required.

If not tracking, then what should be the method of assigning students to classes in high school?

Wheelock favors heterogeneous grouping, ideally for all subjects, but at least for some subjects. Such groupings allow for beneficial interactions with students of differing abilities. These interactions provide students with an appreciation for the diversity (of ability, of interests, of racial and ethnic background, and even of family composition and income) present in their communities. Since the same educational opportunities are provided for all students, democratic principles are upheld.

How does tracking impact the bright student, the average student, the poor student? How does untracking affect each of these students?

Loveless believes that tracking benefits all students by allowing them to proceed at their own rate of learning. They are neither held back by students of lower ability nor left behind by students of greater ability. Since there is opportunity for all students to achieve success in their classes, self-esteem rises. Tracking is especially beneficial to the most talented students who, in a tracked system, are encouraged to excel. In today’s tracking systems, individualized tracking is not only permitted, it is encouraged. This would make modern tracking look much like the benign internal tracking accepted by Rozycki (1999), who defines this process as simply allowing students to progress at their own rates through the schooling experience. Rozycki rejects external tracking in which educators try to match schooling with some sort of projected future societal need. He sees this policy as foolish and wasteful of the limited funds available for public education. Wheelock focuses on the harm that can be done to poor and minority students by their disproportionate representation in the least desirable tracks. She finds the benefits to average or academically talented students insignificant compared to the harm done to the students in the lowest tracks. Nothing gained by the high track students in their special classes could not have obtained by them in some other way. And they have made their gains at the expense of other students. Wheelock recognizes that intelligence is not fixed forever at birth and believes that all students need the challenge of interacting with others whose strengths are different from their own. She does not equate interaction with competition, for competition implies winning and losing.

Loveless believes that students are not challenged to meet high expectations when grouped heterogeneously. Thus, untracking leads to low levels of academic achievement.

How does tracking impact women students? Minority students? How does untracking affect them?

Tracking proponents say that the tracking process is fair to all. But tracking opponent, Jeannie Oakes (1997), points out that American society is driven by wealth and power. Even today, many women and racial minorities lack both wealth and power. At one time it was believed that these groups actually lacked the ability (intelligence) to attain wealth or power. Oakes states that students from wealthy white families still maintain an unmerited advantage under the guise of "natural" abilities. Tracking puts students most in need of expanded learning opportunities into levels where they are least available. The right to a free, adequate, and appropriate public school education is not really available when opportunities differ by gender, race, or socioeconomic status.

Discussion of Ethical Issues

Strike, Haller and Soltis (1998) explain that moral issues must be examined with respect to the principles of benefit maximization and equal respect. Benefit maximization requires that a course of action maximize some "good." The "good" at stake here is a good education. Can proponents and opponents of tracking agree on what this is? Probably not completely, but they might agree that a good education will provide students with the knowledge and experiences they need to function in and contribute to modern society. Although this definition is functionalist, a conflict theorist could agree with it if functioning in modern society is taken to mean dealing with the diversity found in that society. Maximum benefit can mean providing courses for academically talented students who are most able to benefit from them. Or it can mean providing remedial help for disadvantaged students. It can mean providing students with talents in areas other than academics with opportunities for developing these skills. Since monetary resources are limited, funding going to any one of these areas means less funding for the others. The principle of benefit maximization does not require that benefits be equally distributed. However, the end result must be that everyone benefits. In no case can the welfare of one group be traded for the welfare of another group.

Providing resources first for the most able students seems to trade their good for the welfare of average and poor students and thus cannot be justified. The argument is sometimes made that raising the levels of the most able students will bring the greatest benefits to society, so everyone benefits. But an alternative argument can be made for providing remedial help to disadvantaged students. If more students are working at the appropriate level, then the entire school is improved. A similar argument might be made for diversity in course offerings leading to an improved school. But what one group might call diversity another might call fluff.

The issues here are similar to those raised by Strike in a case study where a principal, Mr. Bergen, had to convince the school board that a program to raise the learning of migrant Hispanic students who sporadically attended his school was a better use of district funds than adding technology courses for gifted and talented students. He had to show that the greatest good would come to the greatest number of people, the whole community, if the program for the Hispanic students were implemented. He also advanced the argument that spending extra money on courses for the most talented students was inefficient since the courses would simply teach them what they would have learned on their own. Spending the money on the disadvantaged students would be very efficient in that the students would eventually become contributors to the community rather than draining its resources.

Benefit maximization requires that resources, human and monetary, must be spent in the most efficient manner. Expenditures must bring the maximum benefit to the students and to society as a whole. Benefit maximization also means that money should not be spent where it will produce only minimal benefits. Tracking opponents say that this is true of the extra money spent to provide special courses for academically talented students.

The other principle operating here is the principle of equal respect. This principle states that we cannot deny opportunity to a person based on irrelevant criteria. With respect to educational programs, gender, and racial, ethnic or socioeconomic background are clearly irrelevant. Less clear-cut is the question of whether ability (as determined, for example, by test scores or teacher recommendations) should be a relevant criterion in assigning students to high school courses. Of course, Loveless sees ability as a major criterion while Wheelock sees it as a minor criterion at best. Equal respect does not require that resources be used in the most efficient manner. Proponents and opponents of tracking do agree on the need for remedial programs for educationally disadvantaged students. But, how much of this agreement is driven by the availability of federal funds for these programs?

Tracking opponents favor making all schooling options available to all students. Does making all options available to all students mean that schools should not intervene when students select courses of study well below their abilities? Does it mean that students uninterested in learning higher mathematics must be assigned to these courses in the name of maintaining heterogeneity?

The principle of equal treatment should also be addressed. This principle requires that equals be treated equally and unequals be treated unequally. To decide the question of equality, we need to look at relevant factors and efficacy. In the tracking debate, the question becomes, "Are students in different tracks treated as equals (in the educational, not the social sense)?" The answer is no. Their ability levels make them unequal. However, what factors enter into judgment of ability? Do these factors boil down to factors of gender, race or social station? If so, then inequality of treatment is based on irrelevant factors. And, finally, are tracking programs efficacious, do they produce the desired results? If the desired results are admission to good colleges or the attainment of a satisfying job and students attain these results, then the programs can be considered efficacious. However, we need to question whether the college admissions or the satisfying jobs are the results of tracking. Could they not have been attained by the same students in an untracked educational setting? If the desired results are not attained, then tracking programs would not be considered efficacious. Feinberg and Soltis (1999) discuss the historical, intellectual, and cultural impediments to equality of educational opportunity. They even explore the proposition that there will be unequal distribution of achievement and rewards if some minority groups actually are of lower ability. Oakes and her colleagues explore the history of this perceived ability gap in some detail (1997).

What are the costs and benefits of maintaining tracking? Of untracking?

Claybaugh and Rozycki (1997) present a systematic process for analyzing costs and benefits. Benefits and costs can be described as indivisible or divisible, absolute or positional, substantial or symbolic. Actually, the terms in each pair represent extremes on a continuum, and costs and benefits can be placed in various locations along that continuum. Benefits closer to the indivisible, absolute, and substantial end are those that can be enjoyed by the group (students, society) as a whole. Benefits closer to the divisible, positional, and symbolic end are available to some but not to others. The purpose of the cost and benefits analysis is to determine whether the proposal provides costs and benefits mainly to a large group (society as a whole, all of the students) or to individuals. The results of my costs and benefits analysis applied to the question of eliminating or continuing tracking in public schools are presented in tabular form below. Where I thought it necessary, an explanation of the choices made is given.

Indivisible or Divisible Benefits and Costs

Divisible benefits can be had by some but not by others. Indivisible benefits must benefit all if they are to benefit any.

Indivisible costs must be paid by all if they are paid by any. Divisible costs are paid by some while others pay nothing.

Absolute or Positional Benefits and Costs

Absolute benefits retain their value no matter how many people enjoy them. They give no one an advantage over another. They are ends in themselves rather than means to some end. Positional benefits have value only when they are scarce. They give some people an advantage over others. They are means to some other end.

Absolute costs are carried by all while positional costs apply to only a few.

Substantial and Symbolic Costs and Benefits

Substantial benefits are those recognized as valuable across a variety of groups. Symbolic benefits are seen as valuable only to a specific group.

Although the tracking question does not seem to lend itself to a comparison of substantial or symbolic costs, the actual cost of public education is certainly not symbolic. Tax dollars from the local, state, and federal government finance the public schools. Since the cost of providing schools is borne by citizens as a group, benefits should be available for the largest possible group of students. Unless citizens want to give over to the schools the responsibility for deciding who gets which benefits, the greater good for the greater number will be found where tracking is eliminated.

Recommendations

Major changes in any system of education are complex and costly. However, educational practices should be reviewed periodically and adjusted to meet the needs of the population served. Since the course selection process involves making decisions for students that have implications for their whole lives, schools need to be as honest and thorough as they can in the process. School administrators need to ask: Is the system fair to all students? Does it foster segregation based on gender, race or socioeconomic status? Does it foster respect for racial and cultural diversity? Does it make use of the tools provided by recent research about the many ways students can learn? If changes need to be made, administrators need to make teachers and parents aware of the reasons behind the changes and provide for as orderly a transition as possible.

But, should the students be tracked or untracked? A system provided by a school district for all of its students should, in justice, be untracked. All courses should be available to all students. However, when students come to school deficient in skills needed to succeed there, the school has the obligation to remedy the deficiencies.

Conclusion

When I chose to investigate the topic of tracking from an ethical standpoint, I fully expected to find valid arguments on both sides of the issue. I anticipated that there might be no compelling reasons for one method of assigning students to courses to be preferred over another. Also, I teach in a diocesan high school where tracking is the norm and where an enrollment of over 2000 students suggests that tracking is a practice accepted by parents and students. But parents can examine the tracking policy of a private school to evaluate its effectiveness for their children before enrolling them. If afterwards, they find that the tracking process is unfair to their children, they can transfer them to another school. Parents enrolling their children in a public school can also examine tracking policies. If they are dissatisfied, they can petition the school board for changes. However, it takes time to bring about educational change. Parents still have the option to transfer their children to another school, but it might not be a public school. This means that some children will be denied their right to a free, adequate, and appropriate public education.

Since I chose to focus on the ethics of using tracking in public high schools, using public funds to educate all of the students in the district, I was unable to conclude that tracking represented a moral option in public high school education. Perhaps eliminating special needs children from consideration set up an unrealistic model. Perhaps excluding private schools and charter schools from consideration slanted the analysis. However, within the limits set at the start of this discussion, applying the principles of benefit maximization, equal treatment, and equal opportunity along with a cost and benefits analysis led me to conclude that tracking is unjust in public schools and should be eliminated.

Clabaugh, G. K., & Rozycki, E.G. (1997). Analyzing Controversy: An Introductory Guide. Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J.F. (1998). School and Society. New York:Teachers College Press.

Lockwood, J.H. & Cleveland, E.F. (1998) The challenge of detracking: finding the balance between excellence and equity. [Online] http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/curriculum/detracking/ [2000, April]

Loveless, T. (1999). The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.

NASSP. (2000) Diversity. [Online] http://programs.eionline.net/Breaking _Ranks/mod8 [2000, October 20]

Oakes, J., Wells, A.S., Jones, M.& Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98 (3), 482-510.

Perkinson, H.J. (1995). The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, K.B. (1998). Using current research to make "good" decisions about grouping. NASSP Bulletin,82, Fall 1998, 38-46.

Rozycki, E.G. (1999). "Tracking" in public education: preparation for the world of work? [Online] http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Tracking.html. [2000, October 15]

Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J., Soltis, J.F. (1998). The Ethics of School Administration. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America’s Schools. New York: The New Press.