Tracking
My curiosity was peaked today when our group approached the tracking vs. mainstreaming debate. When I create a post for the group, I'll go into more detail on this, but I'm wondering where the rest of our class stands on this issue. Coming from New York City where almost all students are mainstreamed in public schools, grappling with teaching tracked classes has been a little uncomfortable for me. I feel that some students in my regular classes would benefit from the level of discussion in my Honors classes, and vice versa. I think it's important that students interact with a variety of people--not just those who get straight A's and B's.
posted by Kristin L @ 1:40 PM
6 Comments:
I am thrilled to hear this idea of challenging tracking. I know there is a place for basic skills and honors, but I do feel that we lose some richness in the classroom without such diverse populations. I also feel the Honors kids feel superior and that everyone else should not be valued as they are.
Great comments... I have had two kids who were in skills history last year and they came to me and told me before being placed in regular history class. Its been a struggle but they are rising to the level... they can do it, they just need to believe that they can. They way in which they believe that they can, is having us providing them with the opportunity. When we limit their opportunity we limit their beliefs!
I believe that the problem would be trying to get everyone engaged in the discussion. It always seems that the honors kids like to hear themselves talk and the other kids gladly sit back and let them do it.
I always have this debate with myself. I think philosophically I'm against tracking, and I think the research generally backs that up. But I also know that when I taught honors classes it was a very different atmosphere. I guess what I'd like to figure out is how to make all my classes more like my honors classes (well, the good part of the honors classes - there are downsides as well . . .)
I guess that I am in the unpopular minority that likes tracking. I can see and understand the arguments against it, but I think that in some classes it is almost necessary. Why?
First of all, at the high school level the students have many requirements to fulfill, and there are many departments in which tracking is not available. Thus, students will encounter people of different ability levels in some of their classes.
Additionally, how can we prepare the students who are the highest achieving for strenuous college and post grad classes if they have never experienced the fast pace of honors and AP classes? I bring my personal biases here, I admit. I hated classes that slowed down because some people couldn't keep up. I honestly didn't think that I was any "better" than those students, I just wanted to be challenged. (I readily admit that some honors students do see themselves as "better," but I think that as honors teachers we have the responsibility and ability to combat those opinions.)
Finally, I think that we set some students up for failure if, for example, they read at the 3rd grade level and we put them in all regular 9th grade classes. (You ask how they made it to 9th grade in the first place - that is a matter for another discussion.) Our 9th grade history textbook is difficult for many of the at-grade-level students to understand, and those who are below that level often get frustrated and sometimes check out. I think that we do a horrible disservice to students like that, if their cognitive or reading levels are not where they need to be, when we mainstream them before they are ready.
I love Doug's ideas on "mandatory discussion" classes. I agree that discussion is on of the classroom activities that sparks the most interest in the mind of a student. Though this may be difficult to arrange in small classrooms with lots of students, I also think everyone feels more engaged when the desks are set up facing each other, in a circle. That way, the students can look at each other, give their full attention, and it would be much harder to sink into the woodwork and avoid commenting.
An old teacher of mine used to grade discussions based on who contributed by making a map of the desks in the circle and labeling the deaks with our names. She would then draw a line to the desk of whom was speaking. At the end, she would post the map and it was obvious whose desk was surrounded by lines and whose wasn't. I really liked this and I think it worked because those students who didn't talk definately talked the next time.
My only question is: How many classes could you do this with. It is easy to discuss literature in English, sure, but what about Science and Math? I suppose one could have discussion about History, but how do you hold someone's attention in Geometry?
Post a Comment
<< Home