Tracking... it’s one of those math education buzz words. A trend. It comes, and it goes. With all the differing opinions and conflicting research, it is difficult to know whether or not tracking is a good thing. I have had experience teaching in three different school districts, all of which used a different method of tracking. Below is a brief account of each:
My first school district was quite small, and I was the only eighth grade math teacher for the general education population. I had one advanced class that learned high school Algebra 1. The rest of my classes had widely varying ability levels that quickly became apparent through the Pre-Algebra curriculum. I was very happy to have an advanced course, as those students were ready and eager to be challenged (a teacher’s dream). My other classes, though, were sometimes a struggle. I had low performing students, high performing students, and everything in between. As a first year teacher, I desperately wanted to meet the needs of all learners but felt that this was a next-to-impossible task.
After my first year of teaching, I decided to move closer to home. I also had the opportunity to teach high school math, which was (and still is) a passion of mine, in a slightly larger and more financially-stable school district. In the high school, there was one section of a team-taught class at each level: Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. These courses were a mix of special education students and students that had a history of struggling with math. Although I never did a team-taught class, the stories I heard from my colleagues sounded more like nightmares. (Unfortunately, behavior issues often come along with lower achievement levels.) Meanwhile, I again struggled with the issue of varying needs from my students. While I was gaining confidence with differentiating, I always felt that my bright students were being held back, never really pushed. This couldn’t be the best way, could it?
This year I am continuing my career at what will hopefully be my home district for many years to come. I am still teaching high school math, as well as some junior high science. My district is quite large, and we are fortunate to have the generous support of our community. With such a large high school comes more of an opportunity for tracking. In fact, we have three levels: A track (high performers), B track (struggling learners), and C track (team-taught/special education). There are also resource room math courses. After my dilemma of trying to meet the needs of all learners, I was excited to see if this might be the answer. An interesting component, though, is that the Geometry courses at my school mix the A and B track students. The rationale is that this will give some students the chance to jump up to A track after a transition year, even if they struggled in junior high. Teaching the mixed Geometry courses along with the B track Algebra 1 course, I am surprised a bit at my findings. Although I have several “B” students in my Geometry classes, I feel that most of them are putting forth the effort necessary to keep up with their peers. A bar has been set, and most of the students are trying to reach it. However, in my B track class, many students are living up to the expectation that inevitably goes with this lower level. I see lower rates of homework completion, less seeking of help, and more behavior issues.
In conclusion, I have been unable to make any conclusions! I don’t think that there is a right or wrong way when it comes to tracking math students at the secondary level. Unfortunately, I feel that no matter which method is chosen, some students will get the “short end of the stick.” The question is, who can we justify that to be?
My first school district was quite small, and I was the only eighth grade math teacher for the general education population. I had one advanced class that learned high school Algebra 1. The rest of my classes had widely varying ability levels that quickly became apparent through the Pre-Algebra curriculum. I was very happy to have an advanced course, as those students were ready and eager to be challenged (a teacher’s dream). My other classes, though, were sometimes a struggle. I had low performing students, high performing students, and everything in between. As a first year teacher, I desperately wanted to meet the needs of all learners but felt that this was a next-to-impossible task.
After my first year of teaching, I decided to move closer to home. I also had the opportunity to teach high school math, which was (and still is) a passion of mine, in a slightly larger and more financially-stable school district. In the high school, there was one section of a team-taught class at each level: Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. These courses were a mix of special education students and students that had a history of struggling with math. Although I never did a team-taught class, the stories I heard from my colleagues sounded more like nightmares. (Unfortunately, behavior issues often come along with lower achievement levels.) Meanwhile, I again struggled with the issue of varying needs from my students. While I was gaining confidence with differentiating, I always felt that my bright students were being held back, never really pushed. This couldn’t be the best way, could it?
This year I am continuing my career at what will hopefully be my home district for many years to come. I am still teaching high school math, as well as some junior high science. My district is quite large, and we are fortunate to have the generous support of our community. With such a large high school comes more of an opportunity for tracking. In fact, we have three levels: A track (high performers), B track (struggling learners), and C track (team-taught/special education). There are also resource room math courses. After my dilemma of trying to meet the needs of all learners, I was excited to see if this might be the answer. An interesting component, though, is that the Geometry courses at my school mix the A and B track students. The rationale is that this will give some students the chance to jump up to A track after a transition year, even if they struggled in junior high. Teaching the mixed Geometry courses along with the B track Algebra 1 course, I am surprised a bit at my findings. Although I have several “B” students in my Geometry classes, I feel that most of them are putting forth the effort necessary to keep up with their peers. A bar has been set, and most of the students are trying to reach it. However, in my B track class, many students are living up to the expectation that inevitably goes with this lower level. I see lower rates of homework completion, less seeking of help, and more behavior issues.
In conclusion, I have been unable to make any conclusions! I don’t think that there is a right or wrong way when it comes to tracking math students at the secondary level. Unfortunately, I feel that no matter which method is chosen, some students will get the “short end of the stick.” The question is, who can we justify that to be?
RSS Feed