Track system in education refers to the scheme where students are put into close monitoring ranging from their movements within the institution to their performance. Three tracks are available for each student: academic, technical-vocational-livelihood, and sports and the arts. According to exam results or relative academic aptitude, students are divided into distinct groups or courses to prevent gifted learners from being hindered by slower learners. When a learner is tracked in the school system, an administrator, counselor, or teacher place them in a class with other students with comparable academic backgrounds (Dettlaff and Boyd 254). Every student who has graduated from school has, at some point, been enrolled in a course. Throughout their four years of high school, students are monitored, thus influencing how they perform academically. One of several nations that divides its students using the tracking method is the United States. Austria, Germany, Hungary, and the Slovak Republic are additional nations. From the beginning of 1900 until the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, many schools in the United States adopted the tracking system (Kamer and Ishitani 561). Schools continue to utilize the tracking system despite a court decision being overturned.
Notwithstanding being private, some schools are nonetheless permitted to apply the tracking system, which places pupils in classes according to their educational background. The tracking system has a long, troubled past. The tracking system was not always used to separate students into classes based on their educational levels, but it was used to separate students based on the color of their skin. This is still being used today by public schools, showing that the tracking system is modern-day segregation in the education system.
History of Segregation in School
Between 1800 and 1960, segregation was a reality when Jim Crow laws were in force. De Jure Segregation laws gave citizens the power to compel the division of groups. De jure segregation was evident everywhere, including in the schools, where groups of students were separated by skin tone. Black pupils and teachers were placed in distinct categories regarding education. These segregated courses were supposed to be dismantled after Brown v. Board of Education, but their structure changed to student tracking in order to divide them (Kamer and Ishitani 573). The advanced, basic, or low-achieving classes were assigned to pupils when they were tracked into a class. Different types of professors were present in each of these classes. Students in high school were assigned to one of three tracks in the 1920s: high, average, or low. Vocational education evolved into a low-track assignment for students, frequently members of racial minorities who were thought to be less bright (Dettlaff and Boyd 259). It is still unclear how tracking rules and practices and vocational education interact. To explore how tracking impacted racial minority students’ access to equitable educational opportunities in the early 1900s and from 2006 to 2009, this entailed systematically identifying the originating elements impacting tracking and contemporary tracking policies and practices.
Brown vs. Board of Education
One pivotal US Supreme Court case that made desegregation in schools possible was Brown v. Board of Education, which was heard between December 9, 1952, and May 17, 1954. This court case was built upon a number of others that dealt with colleges turning away applicants based solely on the color of their skin. These cases are Gebhart v. Ethel, Bolling v. Sharpe, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA), Briggs v. Elliot, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. These lawsuits were handled by the Legal Defense and Education Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. They argued before the court that racial segregation in public schools expressly violated the fourteenth Amendment. African Americans now have equal civil and legal rights as other US citizens under the 14th Amendment. Public schools broke the law when they divided children based on their skin tone, which made this lawsuit possible (Kamer and Ishitani 571). In 1954, this issue would be decided by a 9-0 majority, with new justice Earl Warren stating, “We find that the idea of “separate but equal” has no place in the area of public education. Separate institutions of higher learning are fundamentally unfair (United States court). Because the court did not provide a strategy for schools to desegregate their courses when this court decision was reversed, many southern states did not begin desegregating their classrooms until much later. The first significant court lawsuit that contributed to desegregating schools was this one. There is still considerable work to be done, and the Brown ruling did not instantly change the nation. It took schools more than five years to enforce the Brown vs. Board ruling (Kamer and Ishitani 565). However, eliminating segregation in the country’s public schools served as a significant stimulus for the civil rights movement and made advancements in the desegregation of housing, public places, and institutions of higher learning feasible.
Races Available in Each Group of Classes
The three categories into which the children are divided are made up of several racial subgroups. According to an article in the Atlantic, there are a lot of variances among the three class levels in the Elk Grove Unified School District. The school system observed that there were 29 percent white kids, 30 percent Asian children, 17 percent Hispanic students, and just 11 percent black students in the AP level class, the highest-level subject. When the GATE program, which stands for Gifted and Talented Education, was examined, a similar build-up was seen. According to the report, 6 percent of people are black, only 39% of people are white, 30% of people are Asian, and 11% of people are Hispanic. Approximately 24% of the entire student body is white, 21% is Asian, 25% is Hispanic, and 16% is black (Pozas, et al. 218). There is a huge gap between white and black pupils when you compare the proportions of students in ap classes. Even eighth-grade math classrooms in the South Orange Maplewood school system exhibit these tendencies. In the total enrollment, there are roughly 47% black and 44% white students; however, in the upper-level math course, 73% are white and only 11% are black (Dettlaff and Boyd 263). The school district saw similar characteristics when examining one of its schools (Pozas, et al. 234). The complexion of the students in the Advanced Placement classes at Columbia High School was significantly different. Only 18% of the AP course’s students were black, they discovered, making up around 69 percent of the student body.
Pros and Cons of Track Systems
Although the tracking system might have numerous benefits, it actually has the opposite effect. Even though it would seem that teaching students who are on the same academic level would be simpler, there are many drawbacks. The pupils in the lower-level course are identified by grouping those with comparable academic backgrounds. The students in these lower-level courses may suffer from diminished self-esteem as a result. These lower-level course instructors have different success standards than those of higher levels. These pupils may not be able to advance in their academic careers as a result. Although there are several drawbacks to the tracking system, there are also some advantages (Pozas, et al. 228). When the monitoring system is implemented properly, it can assist a teacher in instructing children at a speed they feel comfortable maintaining. When it comes to individual courses, the tracking system has another benefit. If a kid excels in math, he can graduate to the more difficult math class; yet, if he struggles in another subject, like English, he can still enroll in the lower-level course. These choices are made with the student’s progress in the educational system in mind (Gurantz, et al. 453). When utilized properly, the tracking system may be a fantastic tool, but the United States is misusing it, which may contribute to the classroom division issue. When utilized properly, tracking enables the teacher to adjust his teachings to each student’s level of aptitude. This can guarantee that students with low and average success levels are able to acquire the content at their speed without falling behind. Tracking hasn’t been proven to affect these people’s academic progress substantially.
Impacts of Debts to Students in Education
Every student entering a school facility has unique skills and talents that can be beneficial. However, individuals who enter school with financial difficulty have a considerably greater struggle than their counterparts. Understanding the number of children living in poverty in the United States is necessary to analyze how poverty affects kids both in and out of the classroom. According to the US Census Bureau, the child poverty rate in 2020 was 16%. This translates to around 11.6 million kids who are struggling with poverty. Both at home and school, these learners endure difficulties (Gurantz, et al. 473). They can experience difficulties at home with food or access to medical care. These learners could require more resources in the classroom than the majority of students should be able to manage. Lack of a notepad or pencil might affect a student’s mental state and ability to study. Schools in low-income or underfunded educational districts experience a similar issue. The effects of underfunded schools are discussed in a New Jersey Policy Perspective journal paper. Underfunded schools with fewer instructors and staff members and increasing student enrolment are some of these issues. The article states that impoverished schools only employ 9.4 staff members for every 100 kids.
Challenges Imposed by Tracking to Teachers and Students
On the other hand, high-funding schools may employ 12.9 staff members for every pupil. How much-individualized education these pupils receive might greatly depend on the personnel ratio to students. In such a system, the advantages are mostly children. who have not experienced life difficulties that negatively affect their academic performance. Lack of skilled instructors is another issue these impoverished schools deal with. Teachers at underfunded secondary schools had three more years of experience than those in highly funded schools, according to New Jersey Policy Perspective research (Gurantz, et al. 470). The Washington Post discovered that districts with significant percentages of Latino and black children are far more likely to be underfunded than districts with a majority of white pupils when people look at the group of students that make up the demographics of these schools.
Effects of Tracking on Studentâs Performance in School
Every learner in the school has been monitored at some juncture, but some are more likely to do well in class because of outside influences. In contrast to places with large proportions of white kids, those with high concentrations of black and Latino pupils are more likely to have underfunded school districts, which implies they are more likely to have fewer resources. During the epidemic, many parents recognized they made poor instructors and sought private tutors (Rodrigues, et al. xx). An ABC News piece described how this firm will flourish throughout this period. According to the report, these private instructors may cost as much as $2,800 a month, which can significantly impact a person’s monthly income (Gurantz, et al. 461). Families with monthly incomes high enough to sustain their children may easily afford these pleasures, but others living in underdeveloped regions do not have the same options. There will be a more pronounced racial disparity in the courses since the students receiving this assistance will be better advanced than those who do not. The racial disparity in the various levels of classes will be harmed by pupils having different resources. Additionally, many students who join ability groups or tracking systems stay there for the whole of their academic careers since their skills aren’t often assessed again between grades to see whether a change is necessary. Others who criticize the monitoring system contend that teachers of low-achieving pupils have lesser standards for them and do not provide them the challenges and motivation to push themselves to become better people (Rodrigues, et al. 89). It is crucial that all students are given challenges and are motivated to do better, even if each kid will have a different idea of what improvement looks like. The right amount of difficulty for each student may and should be decided by the instructor in order to foster progress.
Roles of Race in College Test Systems
There are still elements of racial segregation in place in the college admission process. The SAT and ACT are important exams that allow students from all backgrounds to realize their ambition of attending college. The problem with these standardized tests is that black and Latinos usually test lower than their white classmates. The college board released a study that looked at the difference in SAT scores between American Indian, Asian, African American Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, White, and two or more races they found is entirely different (Hanushek, et al. 609). Of the 1.5 million 11th-grade students that took the SAT, American Indians made up 1 percent of the total, Asians made up 8 percent of the total, African Americans made up 10 percent of the total, Hispanics made up 23 percent of the total, Native Hawaiian made up less than 1 percent of the total, White made up 41 percent of the total and Two or more races made up 3 percent of the total. There is a significant racial discrepancy between the groups based on the percentage of students who took the SAT, which is reflected in the test results. Wealthy students score more on the SAT than their low-income classmates, and the gap between high- and low-income students’ SAT scores was twice as wide for black students as it was for white students. The greatest possible SAT score is 1600, although according to college board data, the top score is only between 1400 and 1520 (Rodrigues, et al. 97). The college board discovered that compared to the 0% of African American test takers, just 3% of white test takers had excellent results. African Americans make up only 19 percent of test takers with scores between 1000 and 1190, which have an average score of 1060. White test-takers make up 41% of these scores. This pattern is also evident in math, one of the closely watched subjects in schools. The typical math exam result is a 528 (Rodrigues, et al. 89). According to studies from the college board, just 36% of white test takers had below-average test results, compared to about 53% of African Americans. Low test results may be caused by African American pupils being placed in lower-class settings and by the fact that these students cannot afford the outside tutoring that many other economically secure families can afford for their children.
Race Gap and Equity in Higher-Level Courses
The resources a kid receives in school may be influenced by a family’s income, but a student’s SAT score may also be affected. The college’s study paper shows the relationship between median family income and overall test results. The average test score for families with the lowest incomes, ranging from 0 to $51,591, was 910, which is 150 points lower than the average SAT score. The middle-class family with an annual income of between $67,083 and $83,766 had an average score of 1059, according to the college board (Hanushek, et al. 633). An average score of 1161 when the highest household income was over 110,244. These patterns demonstrate that wealthier families are able to pay for private instruction from outside sources, which benefits the kid. The racial and economic gaps in SAT scores are widened as a result of this outside assistance.
Government and Schools Roles in Lessening Racial Gap in Classroom
Many institutions impose limitations or gatekeepers that hinder students from enrolling in AP courses or moving on to higher education. In order to advance in the class or track, students must get certain grades or finish certain courses. A student’s ability to advance in the track system may be constrained by access to advanced placement coursework (Strello, et al. 140). The association between open enrollment for AP and the number of students enrolled in AP courses was investigated by the Civil Rights Data Collection of the United States Department of Education. They discovered that the more open AP courses a school offers, the more students would enroll in such subjects (Contini and Cugnata 2020). They studied 16 million students and around 24 000 institutions. They discovered that only 3,722,956 out of 15,991,215 studentsâor around 23.3 percent of studentsâwere enrolled in AP courses in schools that offered 0â3 AP courses. Schools observe a clear association between the amount of open enrollment AP courses offered and the enrolment of students. The Department of Education found that 4,176,040 students, or 26.1 percent of students, were enrolled in the courses at institutions offering 18 to 37 open AP courses. Open enrollment for AP courses would aid in preventing student separation in the tracking system; however, AP classes are not appropriate for all students.
Racial segregation is seen in a variety of ways in Advanced Placement programs. Students in AP courses have the option to take the AP exam, allowing the colleges they are considering to provide them college credit for the course. This will cause a lot of kids to slip into the credit funnel, which is an issue (Hanushek, et al. 617). Students enrolled in AP subjects are weeded out using the credit funnel. Students sign up for the AP class, but only a small percentage may sit for the exam, causing enrollment to drop. A fresh number of students will pass the exam once the number of test-takers is known. In the 2015â2016 school year, there was a sizable racial diversity among students enrolled in AP courses and students who would pass AP courses, according to the Civil Rights Data Collection of the United States Department of Education. In the advanced placement programs, they discovered that there are around 185 white students, 105 black students, 156 Hispanic students, 375 Asian students, and 93 American Indian or Alaska Native students for every 1,000 students (Strello, et al. 163). Only 139 white students, 73 black students, 111 Hispanic students, 313 Asian students, and 59 American Indian or Alaska Native students would ultimately take the AP test of the students who had registered in the advanced placement programs (HernĂ ndez-Cardona, et al. 3425). When the exam results were made public, there were significantly fewer pupils of races. Only 90 White, 21 Black, 51 Hispanic, 215 Asian, and 7 American Indian or Alaska Native pupils ended up passing the exam, it was discovered (Hanushek, et al. 611). Compared to black pupils, who have a 28 percent probability of passing, white students have a 64 percent chance of passing the exam. Students who identify as Hispanic and Native American or Alaska Native also have a pitiful chance of passing the exam, with respective chances of 45 percent and 11 percent. Students of color are believed to fail at considerably greater rates than their white and Asian colleagues (Chu Ilo 269). The segregation in the AP classes is already there at the beginning, but it seems to be considerably worse by the end.
My Personal Experience
Although I was not tracked in elementary school, I got tracked in high school. Since everyone in my class was at the same intellectual level, I attended a private school for most of my elementary years. However, I was placed in honors classes when I switched to a public school in the seventh grade. I view being followed as a good thing. My classmates are at my ability level and eager to learn, and all my lessons are challenging and teach me moral education. It was frustrating to take obligatory CP classes since not everyone had the same ability level. Others, like me, tried to listen and worried about getting a decent score, while some students would speak and not take notes. Being monitored is, therefore, useful because I am in a course where I can learn well.
How Schools Desegregate Classes
Building with diversity in mind through districts creating schools with 50/50 enrollment patterns, with half the students coming from more affluent households and the other half from pupils from less affluent ones. It is the principal’s responsibility to ensure that leadership is distributed fairly and represents the variety of the school. Priorities also include bridging academic and other opportunity disparities (HernĂ ndez-Cardona, et al. 3425). Smart attendance zone creation where schools will not have any attendance boundaries, attracting learners from all across the city, even those who attend the wealthier neighborhoods. The way schools move away from such a system is a complete reorganization of the principle of dividing students into groups. In this case, it is necessary to pay attention to the creation of classes that take into account the advantages of each student. To guarantee a diverse student body, attendance zones that exclude or include certain tracts of land or residential complexes can be created. This gets around the legacy of redlining and other discriminatory financing and housing practices that still affect attendance borders today.
Works Cited
Chu Ilo, Stan. “Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap in America’s Classrooms.” The Wabash Center Journal on Teaching, vol. 2, no. 2, 2021.
Contini, Dalit, and Federica Cugnata. “Does early Tracking affect Learning Inequalities? Revisiting Difference-in-differences Modeling Strategies with International Assessments.” Large-scale Assessments in Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020.
Dettlaff, Alan J., and Reiko Boyd. “Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in the Child Welfare System: Why Do They Exist, and What Can Be Done to Address Them?” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 692, no. 1, 2020, pp. 253-274.
Gurantz, Oded, et al. “A NationalâLevel Informational Experiment to Promote Enrollment in Selective Colleges.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 40, no. 2, 2020, pp. 453-479.
Hanushek, Eric A., et al. “Long-run Trends in the U.S. SESâAchievement Gap.” Education Finance and Policy, vol. 17, no. 4, 2022, pp. 608-640.
HernĂ ndez-Cardona, Francesc X., et al. “Illustration, Re-Enactment, Citizenship and Heritage of Contemporary Conflict: The Case of the Ebro (1938).” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, 2021, p. 3425.
Kamer, Jacob A., and Terry T. Ishitani. “First-Year, Nontraditional Student Retention at Four-Year Institutions: How Predictors of Attrition Vary Across Time.” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, vol. 23, no. 3, 2019, pp. 560-579.
Pozas, Marcela, et al. “Teachers and Differentiated Instruction: Exploring Differentiation Practices to Address Student Diversity.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, vol. 20, no. 3, 2019, pp. 217-230.
Rodrigues, Helena, et al. “Tracking e-Learning Through Published Papers: A Systematic Review.” Computers & Education, vol. 136, 2019, pp. 87-98.
Strello, AndrĂ©s, et al. “Early Tracking and Different Types of Inequalities in Achievement: Difference-In-Differences Evidence from 20 Years Of Large-Scale Assessments.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 33, no. 1, 2021, pp. 139-167.