I really enjoyed the points Christopher made in his blog. It helped me understand the article better. He pointed out the argument very well. Oakes feels tracking is the wrong choice.
Oaks states that some people think this helps target individual needs so that children can learn more. In the article a main argument is pointed out. Oaks argue that children should not be tracked because it actually puts them at a disadvantage.
Actually, it only puts some people at a disadvantage. The more intelligent students continue to get challenged, and those seen as less intelligent go on being taught basic skills and not taught critical thinking.
The children in the honors classes are able to move faster and cover more material, but the kids in the lower learning classes she says are not able to cover the amount of subjects at such a rapid pace. It’s just like she said the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The ones who have been exposed to this higher intense learning are getting the great education, and those who do not have the same benefits are lacking.In my experience tracking was helping but as Oakes and Christopher I am an average student. So when I was placed in harder classes it was beneficial. After being in the lower level classes it was evident that the teachers were not properly prepared for different level learners. I can agree that tracking is bad, but if the “institution” was to take away tracking, teachers should be more educated and prepared for a different level students. Maybe it should be looked at as if every child needs an Individualized Education Plan (I.E.P.). Students are all individuals, so how could they be grouped together in large clumps? From a young age we try to teach children that everyone is different and special, so to use tracking just seems cruel and possibly confusing to a young child. This website has very valuable information and statistics on tracking in modern schools. How as teachers are we going to keep our classrooms untracked?
Song of the moment: Picture to Burn