Public K-12 schools have taken a wallop since the pandemic began. In an attempt to prevent the spread of COVID, multiple school districts decided to implement school closures. How did this remote learning fare for students? Not only were there learning losses, but these learning losses will result in future depreciated wages. Preliminary data suggest that chronic absenteeism got worse since COVID. In the meantime, the dangerous critical race theory made its way into the curriculum of most schools. As if there has not been enough harm to K-12 students this decade, educators are increasingly looking at eliminating honors classes.
The purpose of honors classes is to provide an enhanced academic experience for high-achieving students that want to learn more than the regular classes. Honors classes often come with the ability to take exams that could provide college credit. On a personal level, I took a lot of honors courses in high school. I excelled on enough of those tests where I came in with nearly a year's worth of college credit before I even started college. By taking honors courses in high school, I was able to take more of the coursework I wanted to in college. Having those honors courses both challenged me intellectually and helped me advance in my postsecondary education.
It is because of my experience I have to ask myself why there is this call to get rid of honors classes. I recently came across a Wall Street Journal article (has a paywall) that highlights school districts that are experimenting with de-tracking. The idea behind tracking is using previous test scores or coursework to match them to courses best suited for their academic level. It seems sensible to put students in classes that best fit their level of academic achievement and comprehension of subject material.
However, tracking critics assert that tracking promotes inequity. These critics argue that tracking is not only a reflection of inequity, but exacerbates it by allocating high-status to some while denying it to others. For tracking critics, the solution is to de-track the students by "offering the same courses to all students in classes composed of students who are heterogeneous in ability." De-tracking proponents posit that exposing students to the more rigorous coursework could help close the achievement gap.
A couple of years ago, the Left-leaning Brookings Institution summarized the research on de-tracking. First, the literature on tracking is "usually described as 'mixed,' but with a clear warning that tracking can exacerbate gaps between high and low achievers." Second, "the schools that have experimented with de-tracking have not yet produced results strong enough to convince the mass of educators to abolish tracking." I do not believe that tracking exacerbates gaps. If it were true, desisting with tracking, i.e., de-tracking would improve the situation, yet, it has not.
The lack of evidence for de-tracking does not surprise me. A National Bureau of Economic Research study following a random sample of thousands of students found that when school choice (e.g., charter schools) was taken into account, tracking programs can help low-ability students (Figlio and Page, 2000). There is also a paper from economists at UC-Berkley and the University of Miami that tracking has significant positive effects on reading and math aptitude for Black and Hispanic students (Card and Giuliano, 2015).
The intuition lines up with the empirical evidence. What happens if you put brighter students in with everyone else? At the very least, they get bored. At the most, they rebel. What happens if you mix students with low academic achievement in with everyone else? They are going to struggle. After all, if a student is already academically behind, what good does it do to inundate that student with even more complicated coursework? A recent study from Learning and Instruction points out that de-tracking negatively affects the academic self-concept of students with low academic achievement (Fleischmann et al., 2023).
In 2021, the state of California tried to reform mathematics education by passing the California Mathematics Framework (CMF), which included reducing the availability of advanced mathematics courses. Hundreds of college professors signed a letter in protest, including professors from Stanford, Columbia, and Harvard. These professors criticized this move by saying that "Initiatives like the CMF propose drastic changes based on scant and inconclusive evidence. Subjecting the children of our largest state to such an experiment is the height of irresponsibility." Rather than having a "one size fits all" approach, the professors recommend multiple pathways to explore mathematics.
How does eliminating options for students to excel such as honors courses help motivate low-performing students to achieve better academic outcomes? Answer: it does nothing to motivate. All it does is implicitly send the message that teachers have given up on helping out those who could use the help.
The question should not be about whether we remove honors classes, but making them more accessible to students. Students need additional supports, especially in primary education before tracking begins in middle school or the early years of high school. As Senior Research Scientist at the Northwestern Evaluation Association (NWEA) Scott Peters points out:
Critics say attempting to teach everyone at an elevated level isn't realistic and that teachers, even with the best intentions, may end up simplifying instruction. Instead, some educators and parents argue schools should find more ways to diversity honors courses and encourage students to enroll who aren't self-selecting, including proactively reaching out to students, using an opt-out system, or looking to teacher recommendations.
De-tracking is another reminder that the pursuit of equity is not about providing equal opportunity; it's about providing equal outcomes. Last month, I covered that same phenomenon when Oregon decided to suspend its basic skills requirement for high school graduation. Yes, it would be great to provide all students with the opportunity to succeed. Those obsessed with equity do not want to admit that not everyone can be equally intelligent, motivated, resourceful or successful, no matter how much they try. The sooner the education system can prioritize learning over equity, the sooner we can help more and more students succeed in the classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment