Zoetropic by Neelakshi Tewari

American education policy has consistently focussed on the terms ‘for all’ as evidenced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which was a civil rights law; the No Child Left Behind policy of 2002; and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, signed by President Obama. However, research since the 1970s has shown that one aspect – high school tracking – violates this noble idea of education ‘for all’ at the points of both access and outcome. I examine the problem and propose measures that can be implemented at local levels of school leadership.

The No Child Left Behind policy of 2002 has come a long way in establishing our commitment towards education for all. Despite critique that waivers allowed during the Obama administration harmed the very students who needed the pressure of ‘no child left behind’ to make schools focus on their success, the policy started an important conversation on universality which the Every Student Succeeds Act attempts to consolidate. Here is a highlight from the website:

“Requires—for the first time—that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers.”

Three years since the act was signed and with state plans for accountability ready and being implemented, it is time to consider if ESSA does create frameworks for its desired outcomes.

What is the problem?

ESSA does not focus on college or career readiness beyond the highlight as seen on the website. With little clarity on what college readiness or career readiness means, states are creating their own parameters based on AP test scores (college readiness) or CTE/Workforce Innovation Board certifications (career readiness). There is also an assumption that only vocational education will lead to career readiness, as per state plans. In state responses to ESSA’s accountability measures, the one aspect conspicuous by its absence is school tracking, which violates the notion ‘for all’ at the point of access and outcome of college or career readiness.

What is tracking?

School tracking refers to the system of placing students in different clusters of subjects according to their ability, interest and goals. The most common tracks are academic or college track and the vocational tracks. However, there are multiple tracks in between  these two, which move towards one or the other end of these two tracks. There are also differing levels of mobility and flexibility between tracks in different schools. The rationale behind tracking is to group students according to ability and/or interest to allow for more focussed training towards their goals.

Research since the 1970s, however, has revealed several problems in the actual implementation of tracking in schools. These problems directly impact the notion of quality education ‘for all’ in America’s schools. Firstly, research on the impact of educator perceptions on student choices revealed that educators tend to place students in tracks based on stereotypes of race, gender and socioeconomic class. Even though teachers believed they were following the human capital theory idea of creating a hierarchical workforce, their decisions were not based solely on merit and ability. Secondly, Rosenbaum in his seminal work, provided evidence that the vocational track had a negative impact on students’ IQ while the academic track had a positive impact on the students’ IQ. This means that students from weaker sections of society were being subjected to poorer quality of education and an ‘obedience first’ socialization. Thirdly, research has also shown that students in the academic track report greater levels of satisfaction and better relationships with their teachers while students in the vocational track report lower levels of self-esteem. They also report more impatience and unkindness from their teachers. Jean Anyon’s work on hidden curriculum in schools has shown that teachers’ expectations from students become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence, the the environment created in vocational tracks can be hampering student development.

This creates a two-fold problem for the notion of ‘for all’ as mentioned in ESSA. Firstly, college readiness is clearly not accessible to all students based on factors other than ability or interest (point of access). Even career readiness ‘for all’ is seriously compromised as the quality of education being provided in the career tracks is poorer, not just in terms of content but also in terms of the environment necessary for a student to flourish (point of outcome). Hence, advantaged students compound their advantages while those that such policies aim to assist continue to spiral in below-average competency, as also shown by research.

What needs to be done?

I propose five measures, most of which can be implemented by schools independently, or atleast by school districts.

1. Engage with parents and counsel them to be involved and help their children make choices that reflect actual interest and potential (not just current ability). Schools tend to accommodate parents and children’s choices without question, which can be problematic as families in weaker sections of society operate through a need for immediate security through blue-collar jobs. As educators, it is our responsibility to provide informative counselling and encourage them to consider the child’s potential while choosing tracks. Accomodation limits access to the academic track, violating the idea of opportunity ‘for all’.
2. Look internationally for ideas such as broad scoped tracks and delayed tracking.
   1. In Japan, students are segregated into tracks very late in high school and spend most of their school life studying a common curriculum. This helps in making tracks look like focussed training for life after school as opposed to an ‘identity’ or a marker of several personality factors.
   2. Broaden the scope of tracks with more common curriculum to create well-rounded students braching out into different areas of the workforce. In Germany, school tracks are considered important for individual development. However, the tracks do not differ greatly from each other and tracking is based on merit, leading to fewer stereotypes and resultant consequences. This also ensures basic quality in all tracks and reduced problems created through stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecies.
3. Enhance and encourage mobility between tracks. Schools that encourage greater electivity by students, greater selectivity in tracks, greater mobility and inclusion have lesser variation in experiences. While this may not solve the problem of poorer quality vocational tracks, it does equalize opportunities and experiences of students.
4. Professional development of teachers that examines their privelege and bias may be useful in mitigating the lowered expectations of students in the vocational track and the biased track assignment.
5. ESSA needs to specify the meaning of college and career readiness and the expectations mandating all students get both access to quality education and robust frameworks ensure equal opportunity for high-quality outcomes as well. While states have been given the freedom to devise their own accountability structures, there needs to be greater clarity on expectations at a federal level, especially since states have not responded to ‘for all’ through their accountability measures.

Why now?

While tracking has been a part of American education for a long time, it has also been criticised for a long time. However, lack of policy has not incentivised much change. Since 2002, a commitment to quality education ‘for all’ has been in focus with much critique directed towards the lack of universality in implementation. This makes it urgent and important to look at aspects of schooling that may not be in policy books but are omnipresent in American schools and challenge the central idea towards the democratization intended through these federal policies. My proposals recognise that tracking can be useful however; some structural changes that can be implemented at school level will also ensure it follows the spirit of American education – quality ‘for all’.

Image: gps.gov