The Ethics Of Tracking In Schools

In schools throughout the country, there are certain tracks set in place for students at different academic levels. In some schools, there are simply high and low tracks, while in others, there are tracks for individuals who plan to go to college and for individuals with learning disabilities. Since tracking itself takes on so many different forms, educational theorists have taken many different viewpoints on the subject. Many have agreed that there are faults within tracking, though some believe them to be fixable. In this paper, the thoughts of Maureen T. Hallinan, Adam Gamoran, and Jeannie Oaks regarding tracking in schools will be compared, contrasted, and critiqued. Due to the specific faults presented by each theorist, especially the

Tracking can present some benefits if it is implemented in a proper manner. This is the main basis of Hallinan’s theory. If schools work to reduce these issues, students of all levels will be able to benefit. While struggling students are able to get extra help, advancing students will be properly engaged and stimulated so as not to stunt their academic development. High track students will be continually challenged and will not become bored with school. Hallinan states that in order for tracking to be useful, flexibility is needed to “preserve the homogeneity of tracks” (Hallinan 189). She believes that even within “high” and “low” tracks, there will still be students at the top of the class and at the bottom of the class. With flexibility that allows for students to move between the tracks, tracking becomes a tool instead of a hindrance. Gamoran agrees that tracking can be beneficial when used correctly. However,

However, as not all students are at the same level of understanding, it is imperative that a different system is put into place. In colleges, there are usually departments for academic success. These departments will organize tutors, for students who require extra help, and they help give accommodations to students. These accommodations can allow for even more added help for students who may need it more, specifically students with learning disabilities, test anxieties, and more. If an academic program were to be placed into primary education, it would help the students who normally would’ve been placed on the low track, while still keeping the academic honesty of each student. It would minimize the bias and social/psychological problems that Oaks presents, yet it would help the lower level students, as Gamoran