Imagine a math classroom full of students who struggle with grade-level content all grouped in the same class to flounder together. This happens in schools across the country every day and some educators believe this is truly in the best interest of students. Let’s examine what really happens in these classrooms and the reasons why tracking students by their ‘ability level’ is harmful to students and teachers.
Myth #1
Tracking students allows the teacher to teach the content more slowly.
As we work towards equitable teaching, we must allow all students access to grade-level content. Teaching grade-level content at a slower pace equates to some standards being left out of the instructional content due to the slower pace. Additionally, slower does not equate to accessible. Flexibility is a much better approach to teaching students who may struggle with grade-level content. Students need to have access to the content in flexible and openly accessible ways rather than asking them to memorize and mimic a procedure or rule. What we often do in tracked classrooms is boil the content down to step-by-step procedures that students need to memorize. We provide shortcuts and mnemonics to help students memorize the math. Instead, we want to encourage students to think about visual and concrete strategies to access mathematics. Many students who struggle can be incredibly creative thinkers, hence they can be flexible in their use of strategies and models to access the math.
Myth #2
‘Low’ students can’t learn with ‘regular’ students, they will feel bad about their lack of math skills.
The quickest way to create students with a negative math identity is to place them in a ‘low’ class where they quickly realize they have been identified as one of ‘those kids’. Tracking students quickly leads to a crisis in math identity which leads to student apathy and compounded math struggles. Students need access to all types of math-thinking peers in the classroom. They need access to rich math conversations where they contribute their own thinking and collaborate with their peers to build mathematical understanding for all. When we place students into tracked classes we are setting them up for low expectations, as inherently we expect less of the tracked students since we have identified them as ‘low’ achievers. All we are doing is perpetuating the low math identity the students have to begin with and compounding the problem by sending the message that we think they belong in the ‘low’ class. Students with a variety of ability levels and thinking strategies in the same classes can learn a great deal from each other. The representation of a variety of student thinking enriches all students’ mathematical thinking.
Myth #3
‘High achieving’ students need to be tracked so teachers can meet their need for accelerated learning.
Most students who are high-achieving in mathematics can be rigid in their thinking which can lead to thinking about math in only one way. Mathematics is a beautiful language that permeates every aspect of our lives, however, tracked students only hear and see math one way. When we place students in a classroom with students who think just like they think they never have the opportunity to think ‘outside the box’, to think creatively about math. We are teaching these ‘higher achieving’ students to learn math with blinders on, which is not our intention. All students should have access to others who think about math in a flexible way so we can learn the meaning of math rather than just seeking the answer. Heterogeneous groups of students thinking collaboratively about the grade-level content where students learn to go deeper rather than into the next grade level at a surface level, that is how we deepen their love of math and build positive math identity.
Teachers are impacted by tracked classes.
In addition to tracking causing negative math identity for students and closing off their ability to learn from their peers in a flexible way, we are also causing teacher burnout by asking teachers to teach tracked classes. When students have a negative math identity they will exhibit behaviors that allow them to opt-out or avoid doing mathematics. Often poor math identity can lead to acting out behaviors, avoidance behaviors, and hiding behaviors which can create a very challenging classroom environment for the teacher despite her efforts to support the students. It is especially challenging to teach a tracked class for these reasons which can lead to teacher burnout. However, if teachers are allowed to teach heterogenous classes they can encourage creative and flexible thinking which can create some magical math moments in the classroom.
Tracking students in math classes has been a practice since the 1950s and a substantial amount of research has shown that tracking doesn’t work. In 2020 the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) published the following statement about student tracking:
“As a practice, tracking too often leads to segregation, dead-end pathways, and low quality experiences, and disproportionately has a negative impact on minority and low-socioeconomic students. Additionally, placement into tracks too often lacks transparency and accountability. Overall, tracking does not improve achievement but it does increase educational inequality. In light of this, NCSM calls instead for detracked, heterogeneous mathematics instruction through early high school, after which students may be well-served by separate curricular pathways that all lead to viable, post-secondary options.”
Schools should think about how we are tracking students and rethink alternatives that celebrate students’ differences.
Research Basis
Bush, S. B. (2019). NCTM’s catalyzing change in high school mathematics: Our role in the middle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(5), 290-294.
Huinker, D., Bush, S. B., & Graham, K. J. (2020). Catalyzing change in school mathematics: Creating the opportunities our students deserve. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(10), 780-790.
Loveless, T. (2016). Tracking and advanced placement. 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning, 3(5).