Understanding Policies of Inequality: The Tracking System
Growing up in a competitive school district meant facing pressure and competition throughout my entire public school education, all with the ultimate goal of getting into a good college – and the larger unsaid goal of getting a high-paying job. My elementary school had a Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program, my middle school had an infamously difficult honors track, and my high school had a range of honors and AP classes that only a certain group of students were compelled to fill their schedules with. As part of each of these groups, I admittedly thought I was something special. I felt like my efforts were being recognized, and my parents were obviously pleased that I would be receiving the best education available in our district.
However, with these seemingly prestigious labels came a very visible division between “advanced” and “regular” students, a divide that was embodied by the culture of comparison and competition that festered at my schools. Almost all the classmates I knew were part of the supposed upper echelons of the student achievement ladder, and I rarely spoke with anyone else. Even my clubs and eating areas had the same general group of “high-achievers,” as we were labeled (and, also, as we labeled ourselves). This uncomfortable hierarchy was something that I never really thought too deeply about, at least until my late high school years.
The practice of dividing students into different levels of rigor is defined as the tracking system, which is supposedly meant to encourage both excellence and equality in education. The tracking system functions off of a perceived dichotomy between high-achieving and low-achieving students, categorizations that are indicative of how much a school may believe in a student’s abilities. Supposedly, tracking would allow for the chance to excel while also accommodating for different students’ needs – but this often isn’t the case. The majority of research on tracking has shown that “the net effect of tracking is to exaggerate the initial differences among students rather than to provide the means to better accommodate them,” according to UCLA Professor Emeritus in Educational Equity Jeannie Oakes.
The tracking system essentially results in the gatekeeping of knowledge, where groups of students identified as “low-achievers” are subject to a poorer quality education and are not afforded the same resources as students on higher tracks. This reinforces a trajectory that disadvantages low-track students – who are often part of minority and low-income groups – in the long run, whereas high-track students are typically better prepared for college and are therefore more likely to have improved career options.
The tracking system – as well as the general culture of prestige and competition surrounding conversations on education – reflect the heavy influence the economy has on the way people think about social issues. Low income and minority students are viewed as “bad investments,” and the prevailing neoliberal view “promotes the judicious spending of limited educational resources in ways that will produce the greatest return on ‘human capital’” (Oakes). The commodification of education contributes to this dehumanizing perspective that hinges on the economic value of fledgling students. With this comes an over-emphasis on so-called “excellence” over equality, as the former is what is deemed most profitable for both individuals and the U.S. as a whole under our competitive capitalist system. In a society that overwhelmingly assigns value to whatever makes the most money, low-income and minority students are too often viewed as hopeless. The tracking system ultimately justifies the continued divestment of marginalized communities under the falsehood that it encourages both excellence and equality.
This reflection was written by Maizah Ali, a part of the 2022 Internship class. “Keeping Track, Part 1: The Policy and Practice Of Curriculum Inequality” by Jeannie Oakes is linked below!
http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/174/Oakes.pdf
