Tracking: How Our Public Schools Raise a Hierarchy by Sarah Donnelly High school. Happily or begrudgingly, we all put in our four years. Some of our teachers may have been boring, a few of them unapproachable, but on the whole, we learned. And many of us learned under the umbrella of our high school honors program. We were the prized students-highly motivated, focused and regarded by school staff as the cream of the crop. The opportunity to teach us was a reward for experienced teachers who had put in their time with the less motivated. We were at the top of the high school hierarchy and headed straight for college. In a meritocratic society in which public education was originally conceived as "the great equalizer," every student has the opportunity to do the same, right? Public schools were established nationwide beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The influx of immigrants and the desire for the widespread education of the nation's young citizenry called for a network of "people's colleges" designed to allow every child the opportunity to further their education if they so desired. Early public schools were widely homogeneous, comprised mostly of white upper middle class children. Children from lower classes often had to work rather than attend school to help support the family. In 1890, fewer than 10% of the country's 14-17 year olds attended public or private schools. In 1892, the Committee of Ten on Secondary Studies of the National Education Association was requisitioned to standardize secondary schools' college prep curricula and college admission requirements. The rapid increase in secondary school graduates caused the first push to prepare students for college. The Committee suggested a curriculum of four basic courses (classical, Latin-scientific, modern languages and English) to be offered to all students. Ability grouping was not a part of the program and was unequivocally opposed by the committee. The committee was further opposed to viewing college preparation as the main function of secondary schools. These proposals were drastically out of touch with the desires of the nation. The enormous wave of immigrants around the turn of the century inflated student enrollment nationwide. Between 1880 and 1918, public school enrollment increased by more than 700 % to over 1.5 million students. By 1920, more than 60 % of high school age children were enrolled. The face of schools was changing. Public schools were put under enormous pressure to help assimilate new immigrants into American society. The call for greater social control was widespread. Immigrant children would be accepted, of course, but would have to learn their place. As turn of the century education theorist Edward A. Ross explained, it was the duty of schools, "to collect little plastic lumps of human dough from private households and shape them on the social kneadingboard". It became the schools' duty to teach immigrants about American culture. In 1909, renowned educator Ellwood Cubberly wrote, "Everywhere these people tend to settle in groups or settlements, and to set up here their national manners, customs and observances. Our task is to break up these groups or settlements, to assimilate and amalgamate these people as a part of our American race, and to implant in their children, so far as it can be done, the Anglo Saxon conception of righteousness, law and order, and popular government." Schools consequently assumed an integral place in the industrial order,. responsible for ensuring the Americanization of the new generation. They were to weed out the deficient from the excellent, in keeping, of course, with the established American hierarchy. The then popular theory of Social Darwinism supported the idea of inherited ability, i.e. a labor worker is born to be a labor worker. As the NEA stated in 1918, "Education in a democracy... . should develop in each individual the knowledge, interests, ideals, habits, and powers, whereby he will find his place and use that place to shape both himself and society toward ever nobler ends." Say hello to tracking. Through all of the school restructuring and reform, tracking has remained in place-though more and more education analysts denounce the practice as ineffective and biased. The predominance of minorities and poor children in the lower tracks invalidates the meritocratic principles on which ability grouping is supposedly based. While schools do not automatically place children in a track level according to race or social class, the manner in which the children are evaluated often increases the odds of a low income or minority student being placed in a low level. Nationwide, almost every study on tracking has found poor and minority students to be disproportionately underrepresented in high track classes. A 96-97 study of the Middletown Public Schools conducted by the Diversity Enhancement Committee found Blacks and Hispanics to be fairly represented in college level courses at the middle and high school levels, but underrepresented in the high school advanced English and Math courses. In proportion to their enrollment in Advanced English, White students were nearly four times more likely to be enrolled than their Black classmates and nearly three times more than their Hispanic classmates. In College Algebra, White students were nearly 5.5 times more likely to be enrolled than Black or Hispanic students. The nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation is most often found in schools where minority students are also poor. Why are poor children so often evaluated as slower students? First, low income students may bring extra stresses to school and be perceived as rowdy and unmanageable, and teachers, faced with a classroom full of 'under-motivated' children (and well aware of their supposed academic capability) often value control over anything else. Consequently, unmanageable children may be incorrectly labeled slow and locked into a track with consistently low expectations of them. A 1984 study on tracking conducted by education analyst Jennie Oakes found a marked focus on discipline in low track classes, which was not present in average or high level classes. In many of these classes, time spent on discipline seriously reduces time spent on course work. "This is my worst class," wrote one junior high school low-track math teacher "Kids are very slow-underachievers and they don't care. I have no discipline cases because I'm very strict with them and they are scared to cross me. They couldn't be called enthusiastic about math-or anything for that matter." But if they really want to, kids can move up, can't they? A remedial track is just a starting point from which motivated kids can move to higher tracks. Basically, why wouldn't the kids at the bottom want to scramble up to the top? Whether some students have the motivation and whether they have the tools are two separate issues. One of the most frightening aspects of the tracking system is that it's a bitch to change tracks. Teachers do not simply change the way they present subject material to the lower track, they are often pressed to omit large amounts of material. Disciplinary issues, perceived capability, or student and teacher expectation may mean the difference between reading Shakespeare and a young adult novel. Oakes' study found some low track coursework differed markedly from basic reading and writing curricula and instead focused on life skills like how to write job applications and balance a checkbook. Without assistance from a parent or teacher, a low track student has a difficult time moving up, and this transition becomes more difficult the longer the student remains in the low track. If some classrooms systematically provide vocational training with low academic expectations through middle and senior high, and these classes are difficult if not impossible to break from without outside assistance, where does equal opportunity education fit in? Oakes' research shows tracking has exerted negative long-term psychological effects on those in lower tracks. No one in school is more aware of their evaluated "slowness" than the students who carry the label. During some of the most tumultuous years of one's life, constant frustration at school can foster a feeling of social isolation with lifelong repercussions. A 1976 book by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America, accused schools of socializing children into their inherited adult roles in society. By claiming that the biased tracking system is meritocratic, schools convince children of each ability level that they belong there. This rationalization of stratification is similar to that in the workforce, in which the individual is resigned or even dedicated to his or her role in the industrial hierarchy, believing the assignment to be objective and efficient. Bowles and Gintis cite frequent failures and negative socialization as acquainting a child with his or her socially responsible career, "By the time most students terminate schooling, they have been put down enough to convince them of their inability to succeed at the next highest level". This type of legitimization discourages the critical thought and social bonds that may challenge social structure. Clearly, a number of factors outside the school walls affect the academic success of a child, including family support, personal motivation, and natural ability. Not all kids are born with the same strengths. Even if tracking were absolutely abolished, students' academic performance would vary. The system is flawed when, rather than offering every child the materials to succeed, it groups students early in their academic careers along ill-conceived measures of intellect that reinforce social inequalities. Public schools should not, actively or passively, reinforce the notion of birthright. To improve individual academic achievement, many schools are drafting reform proposals which aim to equalize educational opportunity. Middletown schools have just released a five year plan designed to raise expectations and standards among staff, students, and parents for every student, with special emphasis on minority populations. The proposal includes increased academic tutorial programs, a parent outreach worker, diversity training for staff, and a developed guidance program at the elementary levels. Many involved in education believe disproportionate opportunities must be addressed early in a child's academic career. Tom LaBella, head of the Middletown High School Guidance Department, explains "You don't just suddenly move kids from basic to honors in high school. You must start earlier. The younger the child the easier." Academic support programs like Wesleyan's Upward Bound program also have succeeded in helping disadvantaged students reach their goals. Heterogeneous or mixed ability grouping is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to tracking. Studies of heterogeneous classes show academic improvement among the lower tracked students and a continued level of excellence among those of average or higher ability. Mixed ability classes are just one of the ways to increase students' choices for the future and ready them for the adult rat race waiting just beyond the school grounds.