Alicia Haller
LAW 461
Final Paper
Spring 2010
Tracking: An Inherently Inequitable Practice
Tracking –the mere mention of the term around a group of educators is sure to elicit a
heated debate. Urban, suburban, rural; elementary and high school; veteran or novice teacher:
educators of every category have strong opinions about this practice. This paper will explore the
definition and purpose of tracking in schools and will provide evidence of the inequitable nature
of the practice. Articles from two leaders in education will be explored and will provide the
context for an examination of tracking as a school organizational structure that re-segregates the
student population and is inherently inequitable. While both authors agree on the definition and
purpose of tracking, they arrive at very different conclusions in light of the impact of these
programs. The analysis of their arguments will be used to further examine the practice of
tracking and its interaction with education law, specifically the ruling in Brown v. Board of
Education, and its goal of desegregation.
Thej
uxt
a
po
s
i
t
i
ono
fMa
ur
e
e
nHa
l
l
i
na
n
’
sTracking from Theory to Practicei with Jeannie
Oa
k
e
s
’More than Misplaced Technologyii, exemplifies what might be overheard during one of
t
hos
e“
heated de
ba
t
e
s
”mentioned previously. These two articles represent a synthesis of the
collective arguments for and against the practice of tracking. Oakes, currently at the Ford
Foundation and previously a professor at the University of California Los Angeles, authored the
seminal critique on tracking: Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.iii Hallinan, a
sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame, is an unabashed advocate of tracking as an
effective and efficient organizational structure for schools.
1
I.
Definition and Purpose of Tracking
Before weighing in on the subject of tracking, it is important to define the word as it relates
to education practice. Hallinan defines tracking a
s“
t
hepr
a
c
t
i
c
eofa
s
s
i
g
n
i
ngs
t
u
de
n
t
st
o
iv
instructional groups on t
heba
s
i
sofa
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
”
Tracking is a practice at the school level where
students are grouped into high, middle and low levels and attend classes designated for their
specific track. Tracking i
sdi
f
f
e
r
e
ntt
ha
nt
hec
ommonl
yus
e
dt
e
r
m“
a
bi
l
i
t
yg
r
ou
pi
ng
,
”which can
occur within a classroom. Ability grouping is often practiced within heterogeneous classes.v
Relying on surveys and case studies, Hallinan explores both the practice of tracking and
its effects. Oa
k
e
sa
g
r
e
e
swi
t
hHa
l
l
i
na
n
’
sd
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
ona
n
da
na
l
ysis of the effects of tracking.
Howe
v
e
r
,t
ha
ti
swhe
r
et
het
woa
ut
h
or
s
’a
g
r
e
e
me
n
te
n
ds
;Oa
k
e
sdi
s
ma
nt
l
e
sHa
l
l
i
n
a
n’
sa
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n
that the negative consequences of tracking can be minimized by ensuring the fidelity of the
selection criteria and by creating a nonracist school culture. An analysis of the impact of
tracking on subgroups of students can be explored through the lens of law and policy.
According to Hallinan, the controversy surrounding tracking revolves around two areas:
1.) the effectiveness of the practice and 2.) issues of equity. In terms of effectiveness, she asserts
t
ha
t
,“
Thei
nt
e
n
de
dpur
pos
eo
ftracking is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
vi
i
ns
t
r
uc
t
i
on.
”
These two ideas are not necessarily compatible, and in some cases can be in
conflict. A practice can be efficient in terms of teacher effort, but that does not correspondingly
make it the most effective method for improving students learning.
II.
Effectiveness of Tracking
Proponents of tracking point to the benefit of homogeneous groupings, which can allow
vii
teachers to tailor instructional practices to the specific ability level of the “
track.
”
The
homogeneous groupings involved in tracking are defined strictly by the ability of the students in
2
the group. Hallinan, herself, undermines the notion that homogeneous groupings allow teachers
t
ot
a
i
l
ori
ns
t
r
uc
t
i
ont
ot
heg
r
ou
p’
sa
bi
l
i
t
ywhen she concedes that cognitive development is
uneven. Given that biological fact, t
het
e
r
m“
homogeneous groupings”then becomes a
misnomer. The group will naturally devolve into heterogeneous grouping and can only be
c
on
s
i
de
r
e
d“
h
omog
e
ne
o
us
”a
ti
n
c
e
pt
i
on
. In addition to the issue of uneven cognitive
development, there is strong evidence to suggest that students have differing instructional
methodological needs.viii The differences are based on learning style needs, rather than the
ability of the students. Homogeneous ability tracking does not necessarily equate to
homogeneous groupings of learning styles. Because of the variety of learning styles,
differentiated instruction is equally important in tracked groups and untracked groups. This
variety brings into question whether a group can ever truly be called “
homogeneous,”if the only
criteria used to determine such categorization is student ability. Even if one were to factor for
learning style and ability, the homogenous group would only be similar at the point of formation,
but become less so over time.
Hallinan dissects the criticism of homogenous grouping through an exploration of the
issue surrounding selection criteria. She asserts that “
a
bi
l
i
t
y
”i
sbr
oa
d
e
rt
ha
nt
e
s
ts
c
o
r
e
s
, and that
multiple factors should be examined to determine the appropriate track for each student. She
agrees with proponents of tracking that argue that multiple factors should be utilized in
de
t
e
r
mi
ni
ng“
a
bi
l
i
t
y
.”Hallinan is clear that assignment to tracks should be based solely on
academic factors, such as test scores, grades, previous coursework, teacher recommendations,
etc. She points to what she believes is the fatal flaw in most tracking designs: students are often
tracked based on additional, non-academic factors, such as scheduling conflicts, teacher
availability, extra-curricular activities, etc. Including non-academic and subjective factors in the
3
decision, leads to what Hallinan describes as a lack of standardization in terms of what
constituted a high, middle, or low track. Therefore she concedes there is great discrepancy
within and among schools in terms of the various factors they used to determine assignments to a
particular track, and in how or when a student might be able to move between tracks. This leads
to tracked heterogeneous groups with great overlap in abilities between tracks, which bring into
question the effectiveness of a practice with such weak internal validity.
Ha
l
l
i
n
a
n’
sargument in favor of tracking is further undermined by her conflicting views
around the importance of maintaining the homogeneous nature of the groupings. First she states
that only academic factors should be considered to ensure that tracks are truly homogeneous.
She then asserts that ability groups should be flexible enough to allow frequent moving between
tracks. Given the recommendation that schools use both standardized test scores and course
prerequisites as criteria for selection to specific tracks, transfers could only happen on an annual
basis. Alternately, in order to allow for frequent transfers, the system would have to rely on nonacademic criteria, or subjective criteria (i.e. grades and recommendation) to allow for the type of
flexibility she suggests. Relying on subjective or non-academic criteria, she has previously
argued would likely lead to a less effective, heterogeneous track. Further, one could argue that
frequent movement between tracks has the real potential to undermine the benefits of a cohesive
and scaffolded approach to curriculum. Not to mention that it completely ignores the social and
emotional needs of the student.ix It would require students to continually regroup and to reform
systems of support within their new track. The detrimental impact of this type of disruption and
the actual reduction of efficiency created by such a system seems likely to outweigh any
projected benefit.
4
This inability to factor for all variables that would contribute to purely homogenous
groupings brings into questions whether the fidelity of the model can be maintained, even in the
short term. While the concept of tracking may be appealing to educators who struggle with the
diverse ability levels encountered in the average public school classroom, theory divorced from
practice cannot be expected to result in consistently positive outcomes. For example, the
political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx provides an admirable theoretical base for the
foundation of a governmental structure.x However, implementation of the theory has proven to
be more than difficult given the numerous conflicting elements within a given society. Most
governments that have attempt to adopt a Marxist-based government (communist or socialist)
ultimately corrupt the model when faced with conflicting contextual elements that were not
adequately factored into the original theoretical framework.
III.
Equity Issues Involved with Tracking
The second area of controversy with tracking, identified by Hallinan, deals with the issue
of equity. This is the area in which Oakes concentrates her argument against tracking and the
one in which there is the clearest legal argument to be made against tracking. Hallinan concedes
t
ha
t“
l
owability is related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and that tracking
xi
di
s
c
r
i
mi
na
t
e
sa
g
a
i
n
s
ts
t
ud
e
nt
si
nt
he
s
ed
e
mog
r
a
phi
cc
a
t
e
g
or
i
e
s
.
”
She is unambiguous about her
acknowledgement that tracking largely segregates minority and low-income students to the
lower track. However, Hallinan dismisses the idea that segregation alone should be applied as a
rationale for abandoning the practice. She asserts that the negative impact of segregation in a
tracked system can be minimized by integrating non-tracked classes and school activities within
the school building.
5
Oakes strongly disagrees with Hallinan, both on the effectiveness and the equity
a
r
g
u
me
nt
s
.Shedi
s
pu
t
e
sHa
l
l
i
n
a
n’
sa
r
g
ume
ntthat most of the negative consequences of tracking
are due to the technical issues in implementation that undermine the fidelity of the model. Oakes
a
s
s
e
r
t
s
,“
Mos
te
du
c
a
t
or
sc
a
nn
oti
ma
g
i
netracking as a technical, neutral organizational practice
xii
t
ha
ti
sun
r
e
l
a
t
e
dt
op
e
r
s
on
a
l
,
s
oc
i
e
t
a
l
,o
rvo
c
a
t
i
ona
lpu
r
p
os
e
s
.
”
With that one sentence, Oakes
minimizes any discussion about tweaking the implementation of tracking for better outcomes,
and zeros in on the essential and the most important argument against tracking: that it is
inherently inequitable.
But
,l
e
t
’
se
xpl
or
ethe technical argument first. Oakes takes issue with the remedies that
Hallinan proposed to mitigate the negative impact of tracking because they are erroneously built
on the presupposition that schools operate in a vacuum and are not influenced or impacted by the
social and political influences of the larger society. Hallinan claims that the negative
consequences of segregation can be minimized by creating a school culture that is nonracist, and
that the lack of motivation frequently exhibited by lower track students can be improved through
a more comprehensive rewards system. Oakes strikes down that belief. “
Fe
ws
t
ude
nt
s miss the
clear status message carried by racially identifiable tracking in high-status academic classes.
Even if non-tracked classes and extracurricular activities are more evenly mixed racially,
students and adults have their stereotypes and prejudices reinforced by racially identifiable highxiii
and low- t
r
a
c
kc
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
”
This echoes the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board
of Education. That ruling made clear that segregation has a negative impact on minority students
a
ndt
h
a
t“
t
hei
mpa
c
ti
sg
r
e
a
t
e
rwhe
ni
th
a
st
h
es
a
nc
t
i
onoft
hel
a
wf
o
rt
hepo
l
i
c
yo
fs
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
ngt
he
races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority
6
xiv
affects the motivation of a child to learn.
”
I
nt
hi
sc
a
s
e
,t
h
e“
s
a
nc
t
i
onofl
a
w”i
st
hepr
a
c
t
i
c
eof
tracking established by school policy.
Oakes a
l
s
od
i
s
c
oun
t
sHa
l
l
i
n
a
n’
sr
e
wa
r
ds
t
r
a
t
e
gyt
oi
mp
r
oves
t
ud
e
nt
s
’perception of
lower-track status. Oakes doubts that a robust reward system would be able to overcome
s
t
ude
nt
’
s“
a
c
c
ur
a
t
epe
r
c
e
pt
i
onst
ha
ts
c
ho
ol
sh
a
veal
owr
e
g
a
r
df
ort
he
i
ra
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
sa
ndpr
os
pe
c
t
sf
or
xv
s
uc
c
e
s
si
ns
c
hoo
l
s
.
”
Students are not empty vessels, nor do most compartmentalize their lives
in such a way that allows societal norms and values to be kept separate from their school
experience.
I
ti
s
n’
tj
u
s
tt
hes
t
ud
e
nt
sa
ndthe school community that understand the lifelong
consequences of tracking. Oakes points out that parents with high socioeconomic status
routinely use their social and political capital to ensure their children secure positions in the
upper track, regardless of whether or not they are objectively qualified to be there. This certainly
mi
r
r
or
sAn
ne
t
t
eLa
r
e
a
u’
sr
e
s
e
a
r
c
hons
o
c
i
a
lc
l
a
s
sa
n
dparental involvement in education. She
examines the role of social capital in schools and asserts that high- and middle- income parents’
intervention on behalf of their underperforming children results in lower retention and higher
promotion rates for those students.xvi Essentially, her research supports the argument that the
privileged class benefits disproportionally and the underclass is disproportionally burdened by
tracking.
Hallinan applies a structural functional analysis of tracking, highlighting negative
consequences only as the result of flawed implementation efforts. Oakes, on the other hand,
argues that tracking can never be an appropriate approach to education because it is founded in
institutional racism which is a reflection of society, and that no amount of operational tweaking
will change that fact. She attacks tracking from both a structural and a conflict theory
7
perspective. Oakes is strongest with her argument that the inherently inequitable nature of
tracking serves solely to preserve the status quo and primarily benefits those already in the
privileged class. It is not enough to minimize the negative consequences of tracking when
nothing short of eliminating the inequity should be acceptable. She also dismantles the structural
remedies that Hallinan recommends on the grounds that they ignore the political, social, and
power dynamics of society that are mirrored in schools. Specifically she points to research that
shows that students in lower tracks do not have access to high quality curriculum, teachers or
engaged learning environments.xvii
IV.
Tracking in the Post-Brown Era
Educators acknowledge, and research confirms that there is a causal relationship between a
s
t
ude
nt
’
sr
a
c
ea
ndsocio-economic status and their scores on standardized tests. And that as a
group, low income and minority students score lower than white students on standardized
tests.xviii While race is not a specific criteria used for homogeneous grouping for tracking
purposes, the use of standardized test scores results in a re-segregation of races within a school.
The lowest track inevitably represents a disproportional percentage of poor and minority
students.xix
In the 1954 ruling on Brown v. Board, Chief Justice Warren delivered the unanimous
opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hea
s
s
e
r
t
e
d
,“
Wec
onc
l
u
det
ha
ti
nt
hef
i
e
l
dofpub
l
i
c
e
du
c
a
t
i
on,
t
h
edoc
t
r
i
neof‘
s
e
pa
r
a
t
ebu
te
q
ua
l
’ha
snopl
a
c
e
….
s
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
oni
sad
e
ni
a
loft
hee
qua
l
xx
protection of the laws [guaranteed by t
heFour
t
e
e
n
t
hAme
ndme
nt
.
]
”
Although the decision was
written to address the inequities presented at that time –that of segregation within school
districts,
onec
a
nha
r
dl
ybe
l
i
e
v
et
h
a
tt
heCour
t
’
sde
c
i
s
i
onwa
sme
a
n
tt
osimply desegregate the
district but allow for continued segregation at the building level. Today, even while many school
8
districts throughout the country have reached Unitary Status, the issue of segregation within
school buildings remains, and the practice of tracking exacerbates the problem. The decision in
Brown a
s
s
e
r
t
e
dt
ha
t“
s
e
pa
r
a
t
eb
ute
q
ua
l
,
”e
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
dbyPlessy v. Ferguson, has no place in K12 education. Further, the Court stated that equality is determined by both tangible and
intangible elements of schooling.xxi
In fact, the Brown decision not only expressly defines the equitable elements the Court
viewed as basic essentials to the learning environment, it goes further by claiming that there are
“
i
nt
a
ng
i
bl
e
”e
l
e
me
nt
st
ha
tmus
tb
ea
ddr
e
s
s
e
da
swe
l
l
. Specific tangible elements mentioned
include buildings, curricula, and qualifications of teachers. But the court further explores the
elements of a quality education by dissecting the arguments in Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Regents. In Sweatt, the Court lookeda
t“
t
ho
s
eq
ua
l
i
t
i
e
swhi
c
ha
r
ei
nc
a
pa
b
l
eof
xxii
objective measurement but which make for greatness in l
a
ws
c
hoo
l
.
”
And in applying
McLaurin, Warren points out that the Court also considered intangible considerations, such as a
s
t
ude
nt
’
s“
…a
b
i
l
i
t
yt
os
t
udy
,t
o engage in discussions and exchange views with other students,
xxiii
a
ndi
ng
e
ne
r
a
l
,t
ol
e
a
r
nhi
spr
of
e
s
s
i
o
n.
”
In Brown, the Court makes abundantly clear that,
while it applied rationale from cases that involved institutions of higher education in its
consideration, both the tangible and intangible elements explored in those cases are even more
important in K-12 schools. To that end, Warren writes,“
Such considerations apply with added
xxiv
force to chi
l
dr
e
ni
ng
r
a
dea
ndhi
g
hs
c
hoo
l
s
.
”
The practice of tracking violates the spirit if not the letter of the law established by Brown.
It fails upon examination of both the tangible and intangible elements of education. The tangible
element of teacher quality has been shown to be inequitably distributed in tracked school, with
highly qualified and experienced teachers being placed disproportionally in the high track
9
classes, and inexperienced and alternative-route certified teachers disproportionally assigned to
the lower track.xxv And, of course, the curricula between tracks are purposefully unequal. As for
the intangible qualities, if tracked students within a school only interact in non-academic arenas,
one must consider to what extent lower-tracked students will have to engage upper-tracked
students in dialogue likel
yt
oi
mpr
ovet
he
i
runde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngo
fma
t
e
r
i
a
lore
a
c
hot
h
e
r
’
spo
i
nt
s of
view?
Tracking, as defined in this article and practiced in public schools today, is of great
significance for society. The inequitable distribution of quality educational opportunities has
lifelong consequences for both the individual and the communities in which they live. Chief
Justice Warren examined the role of education in society and the issue of access to quality
educational opportunities:
“
…e
ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local
g
o
ve
r
nme
nt
….
I
ti
sdou
bt
f
ult
h
a
ta
nyc
hi
l
dma
yr
e
a
s
o
na
bl
ebee
xpe
c
t
e
dt
os
uc
c
e
e
d
in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where
the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to
xxvi
all on equal terms.”
Tod
a
y
,c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
moft
heCou
r
t
’
sde
c
i
s
i
oni
nBrown has mostly centered on its inability to
create meaningful change for minority students.xxvii Whi
l
ei
ti
si
mpor
t
a
ntt
or
e
c
og
n
i
z
et
ha
t“
t
he
xxviii
Warren court was ma
k
i
ngade
c
i
s
i
o
na
bou
tr
a
c
ei
nt
hec
o
nt
e
xtofr
a
c
i
s
m,
”
it is also important
to acknowledge that in the following 56 years since Brown was decided, there remains a great
deal of work to do in order to provide equal access to high quality educational opportunities for
all students. Tracking is an example of the shortcomings of efforts made toward that goal in the
post-Brown era.
Once could certainly argue that the Court failed to make a case against segregation
because it harms all c
hi
l
dr
e
n.TheCou
r
t
’
sdeficit approach,na
r
r
owl
yf
oc
u
s
e
dont
he“
Ne
g
r
o”
10
student, c
a
nb
es
e
e
ni
ni
t
sa
s
s
e
r
t
i
ont
ha
ts
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n“
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
saf
e
eling of inferiority as to their
status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
xxix
undone.”
While tragic in many ways, that statement expressed why segregation is bad for
minority students, but did not drive home the point that segregation is bad for all students.
Research supports this concept, and has established that segregation is harmful to all
xxx
students b
e
c
a
u
s
ei
tc
l
oudsf
ut
u
r
ed
i
a
l
og
uea
mo
ngt
her
a
c
e
sa
n
ds
t
u
nt
sas
t
u
de
nt
’
swor
l
dvi
e
w.
Education in desegregated schools has been shown to enhance student learning, assists in the
examination of closely held beliefs, and cultivates an understanding of multiple perspectives,
which leads to improved critical thinking skills.xxxi The Court touched upon the idea that
segregation has a negative impact on all students. But the language was couched in such a way
that made it easy for the reader to assume that the idea of quality education being “
denied”was
a
pp
l
i
c
a
bl
eonl
yt
ot
h
emi
n
or
i
t
ys
t
u
de
nt
.Spe
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,“
Tod
a
y it [education] is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional
training, andi
nhe
l
pi
nghi
mt
oa
d
j
u
s
tno
r
ma
l
l
yt
ohi
se
nv
i
r
o
nme
n
t
.
”The idea behind that
statement is even more applicable today in this era of ever-increasing globalization. That
statement applies to students of all races and should resonate with parents of white students as
well as minority students. It begs the question: How can schools that maintain a system of
tracking claim that they are preparing students for the global marketplace, when what they are
r
e
a
l
l
ydoi
ngi
sha
mpe
r
i
ngs
t
ude
nt
s
’a
b
i
l
i
t
yt
of
u
nc
t
i
onin the 21st century by limiting their
worldview and stunting their exposure to a variety of perspectives.
May 17th, 2010 was the 56th anniversary of the Brown v. Board decision. U.S. Secretary
of Education, Arne Duncan, gave a speech in Washington, D.C. where he stated,
11
"Today, on the 56th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education,
we celebrate the progress we have made to bring educational equity to millions of
American students. But we also honor the sacrifice of all those who fought for
equality by recognizing that, for all of our progress, we still have further to go.
We reaffirm our collective commitment to providing a high quality education to
all children regardless of race or background so they can succeed in college and
careers and prosper in life. Education is the civil rights issue of our time.
President Obama and I remain deeply committed to reforming schools so that all
children receive the world-class education they deserve."xxxii
The“
hi
g
hq
ua
l
i
t
ye
duc
a
t
i
on
”r
e
f
e
r
r
e
dt
oi
nt
ha
ts
pe
ech cannot possibly be the one offered to
students in the lowest level of a tracking system. While proponents of tracking have asserted that
the practice is not specifically targeted against minority students, the truth remains that poor and
minority students consistently make up the lowest level of a tracked system. And, that reality
supersedes the meritocratic intent of the practice of tracking. Education reformer, Linda
Darling-Hammond wrote,
“
De
s
p
i
t
et
her
he
t
or
i
cofAme
r
i
c
a
nEqua
l
i
t
y
,t
hes
c
h
oole
xp
e
rience of African
Ame
r
i
c
a
na
n
dot
he
r‘
mi
nor
i
t
y
’s
t
u
de
nt
si
nt
h
eUn
i
t
e
dSt
a
t
e
sc
ont
i
nuet
obe
substantially separate and unequal. Dramatically different learning opportunities
–especially disparities in access to well-qualified teachers, high quality
curriculum, and small schools and classes –are strongly related to differences in
s
t
ude
nta
c
hi
e
ve
me
nt
.…Th
er
e
s
ul
to
ft
hi
sc
ol
l
i
s
i
ono
fn
e
ws
t
a
n
da
r
dswi
t
hol
d
inequities is less access to education for many students of color, rather than
xxxiii
mor
e
.
”
It is impossible to disconnect the technical aspects of tracking from the reality that it resegregates students and disproportionally burdens poor and minority students, with
lifelong consequences.
V.
Other Implications for Tracking
As a former urban school administrator, I have witnessed the intentional inequitable
distribution of resources at the state, district and school level. Archaic funding structures for
education prevent equitable distribution of funds between districts. Nothing short of a complete
12
overhaul of the tax structure will remedy that issue. However, I believe that school
administrators have both a legal and moral obligation to eliminate the process of tracking as it is
inherently unequal and causes great harm to our future. Our society is being robbed of its best
and brightest as an artificial structure has been put in place that limits a large percentage of
students from receiving the quality educational elements they need to thrive. As DarlingHa
mmo
nds
t
a
t
e
s
,“
o
ut
c
ome
sf
ors
t
ude
nt
so
fc
o
l
ora
re much more a function of their unequal
access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, then they
xxxiv
are ofr
a
c
e
.
”
How many brilliant artists, politicians, business leaders, etc. have not reached
the heights they might have in life, if not for the lack of cultivation of their talents and abilities?
It is society as a whole that suffers. Not just minority populations, but all populations are robbed
of the benefits these potential contributors could have made. De-tracking is essential to any
effort to provide equitable distribution of these key resources.
While the decision in Brown was designed to address racial inequity, race is only one part
of the equation when discussing the impact of tracking. In addition to minorities, there are other
sub segments of the student population that are also vulnerable to the negative impact of
tracking. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 6.5 million children in this
country receive special education services.xxxv In addition, nationally, nearly 4 million children
are provided with English Language Learner services,xxxvi and over 800,000 students in America
are classified as homelessxxxvii. Tracking runs contrary to the concept of inclusion and would
further marginalize millions of students that, by definition, would fall into the lowest track, with
little hope of ever moving up. More attention must be paid by our policymakers to the impact of
structures like tracking on our most vulnerable populations.
13
If our society truly believes, as Horace Mann asserted more than 160 years ago, that
xxxviii
“
education is great equalizer,
”
then we owe it to all children to provide them with a quality
educational experience. Civil rights pioneer, W.E.B. Du Bois spoke eloquently about the need
for equal access to education. He drove home the point that access to education for all students
is essential, not just for minorities, but for the good of society.
“
Ofa
l
lt
hec
i
vi
lr
i
g
h
t
sf
orwhi
c
ht
hewor
l
dha
ss
t
r
ugg
l
e
da
ndf
oug
htf
or
5000 years, the right to learn is undoubtedly the most fundamental –the freedom
to learn has been bought by bitter sacrifice. And whatever we may think of the
curtailment of other civil rights, we should fight to the last ditch to keep open the
right to learn, the right to have examined in our schools not only what we believe,
but what we do not believe; not only what our leaders say, but what the leaders of
other groups and nations, and the leaders of other centuries have said. We must
insist upon this to give our children the fairness of a start which will equip them
with such an array of facts and such an attitude toward truth that they can have a
real chance to judge what the world is and what its greater minds have thought it
xxxix
mi
g
htbe
.
”
In order to provide full access to quality education for every student, we must insist that
our schools de-track. Discontinuing the practice of tracking,a
sOa
k
e
spoi
nt
sou
t
,
woul
dbe“
a
n
xl
e
xt
r
a
o
r
di
na
r
yr
e
f
or
mt
ound
e
r
t
a
k
e
.
”
Clearly this reform would need to coincide with a
concerted effort toward ensuring that every class is led by a high-quality teacher. Greater effort
must be placed on improving teacher training programs that foster strong differentiated
instructional practices, so that every student will thrive in non-tracked, heterogeneous classes and
schools.xli Just because a reform is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted. Like most
things in life, if it was easy it would have been done by now. This year marks the 56th
anniversary of the Brown v. Board decision. Discontinuing tracking in our schools would
continue the progress toward providing equality of opportunity in education, which was the
ultimate goal of that groundbreaking case. The time is now to ban the practice of tracking.
14
i
Hallinan, M. (2006). Tracking: From Theory to Practice in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of
Education: a Critical Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 313-318 & 322-324.
ii
Oakes, J. (2006). More than Misplaced Technology: a Normative and Political Response to
Hallinan on Tracking in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of Education: a Critical Reader.
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 318-322 & 324.
iii
Ibid.
iv
Hallinan, M. (2006). Tracking: From Theory to Practice in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of
Education: a Critical Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
v
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 57, 293-336.
vi
Hallinan, M. (2006). Tracking: From Theory to Practice in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of
Education: a Critical Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 315.
vii
Ibid.
viii
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New
York: Basic Books.
ix
Zins, J.E., & Elias, M.E. (2006). In G.G. Bear & K.M. Minke (eds.) Children's Needs III,
Bathesda, MD: National Assocation of School Psychologists. p1-13.
x
Marx, K. & Engles, F. (1964). The Communist Manifesto (reprint –original 1848). New York :
Washington Square Press.
xi
Hallinan, M. (2006). Tracking: From Theory to Practice in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of
Education: a Critical Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 314.
xii
Oakes, J. . (2006). More than Misplaced Technology: a Normative and Political Response to
Hallinan on Tracking in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of Education: a Critical Reader.
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 319
xiii
Ibid. p. 320
xiv
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
15
xv
Oakes, J. . (2006). More than Misplaced Technology: a Normative and Political Response to
Hallinan on Tracking in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of Education: a Critical Reader.
New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
xvi
Lareau, A. (1989). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary
Education. London: The Falmer Press.
xvii
Oakes, J. (1987). Tracking in Secondary Schools: A Contextual Perspective. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
xviii
Coleman, J., et al (2008—reprint) Racial Segregation and Resource Inequality: in Ballantine,
J. H. and Spade, J. (eds), Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education. p.
154-167.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). "The Color Line in American Education: Race, Resources,
and Student Achievement," W.E.B. DuBois Review, 1(2) p. 213-246.
Gardner, H. (1995). Cracking Open the IQ Box, American Prospect, 20 (1995): 71-80.
Herrnstein, R. and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.
Tyack., D, and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School
Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
xix
Oakes, J. . (2006). More than Misplaced Technology: a Normative and Political Response to
Hallinan on Tracking in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of Education: a Critical Reader.
New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
xx
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
xxi
Ibid.
xxii
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). FindLaw. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/339/629.html.
Retrieved May 16, 2010.
xxiii
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents , 339 U.S. 637 (1950). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/339/637.html. Retrieved May 16, 2010.
xxiv
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
xxv
Darling-Hammond, L. Linda. (2004). The Color Line In American Education: Race,
16
Resources, and Student Achievement. Du Bois Review. 1 (2).
xxvi
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
xxvii
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the Wrong Note: The Price We Paid for Brown.
Educational Researcher, 33 (7).
xxviii
Ibid. p. 5.
xxix
xxx
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). FindLaw
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html. Retrieved May 13, 2010.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the Wrong Note: The Price We Paid for Brown.
Educational Researcher, 33 (7).
xxxi
The Civil Rights Project, Social Science Findings About School Integration,
Retrieved on May 17, 2010 from:
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/SSTalkingPoints.pdf
xxxii
Duncan, A. (2010) Statement on the 56th Anniversary of the Landmark Brown v. Board of
Education Ruling. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education.
xxxiii
Darling-Hammond, L. Linda. (2004). The Color Line In American Education: Race,
Resources, and Student Achievement. Du Bois Review. 1 (2). Pg. 213.
xxxiv
Ibid. p. 214.
xxxv
United States Department of Education –data on special education numbers. Retrieved on
April 29, 2010 from http://idea.ed.gov
xxxvi
National Center for Education Statistics –data on ELL numbers. Retrieved on April 29,
2010 from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
xxxvii
United States Department of Education –data on services to homeless students under Title
VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Retrieved on
April 29, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/homeless/index.html
xxxviii
Mann, H. (1848) Twelfth Annual Report. Massachusetts State Board of Education.
xxxix
Darling-Hammond, L. Linda. (2004). The Color Line In American Education: Race,
Resources, and Student Achievement. Du Bois Review. 1 (2). Pg. 213.
xl
Oakes, J. . (2006). More than Misplaced Technology: a Normative and Political Response
17
to Hallinan on Tracking in Sadovnik, Alan (ed). Sociology of Education: a Critical
Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 322.
xli
Darling-Hammond, L. Linda. (2004). The Color Line In American Education: Race,
Resources, and Student Achievement. Du Bois Review. 1 (2).
18