Talk:Tracking (education)

Untitled

Weak agree with merging, but if I understand correctly, tracking is considered a form of ability grouping, so that distinction should be maintained. 75.72.217.253 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caseyfarrissey. Peer reviewers: Sjaberman, Megansmith34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tracking and Grouping are not the same

Disagree, keep the two separate. Tracking is a large system where as ability grouping is found on a much smaller scale. Grouping occurs in the classroom where students are grouped together by ability for a specific subject. Tracking, which can use ability grouping, is a broad program that separates students for all academic subjects. They are similar but not the same Yumjello 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want the two to remain separate then find some sources for the tracking page. As it stands right now the tracking article is nothing but a bunch of unsupported opinions. Make it clear within both pages that they are different as Yumjello notes, one is large scale where as the other is a smaller classroom sized event. On the whole this article needs a lot of work, I'll try to dig up what I can in the next couple weeks. Aluroon (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One particular line's Worldwiew problem

Another major problem is that low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by middle-class, White students.

Although this line is adequately cited and I do not doubt its veracity, the "...white students" is only true for nations that have a white majority, like the US or the UK. Hence, at least this particular qualifier has a limited worldview. However, since I'm notn in the field of education, I wonder if any of the two changes I proposed below can fit with the same citation:

1. [...]low-track classes tend to be primarily composed students of lower socioeconomic status, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students of higher socioeconomic status.
2. In the United States, another major problem...

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Multi-country source

This link is a comparison of tracking that has details about Japan, Germany, and the United States. It includes information about cultural/social differences, teacher perceptions, and more. I think that it might make an excellent source for refining and internationalizing this article. It would be nice to have a couple more sources like this; I'd like to be able to include India and China, for example. If you are aware of any information on these countries' policies, please post! WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Setting

The source that purportedly supports "setting" and "banding" as synonyms for tracking does not mention either term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Setting is certainly a term used in British schools where students are placed in "sets" according to their ability. Not sure if it's a term used widely outside of the UK. 88.104.14.94 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the UK Setting means grouping classes according to ability per subject; whereas streaming (referred to as tracking here) refers to grouping classes by average ability over all subjects. They are not synonymous as stated by this article.Beloved ltd (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tracking for Economic Growth

Tracking now has been shaped to feed the United States economic growth. In poor urban public schools, young students are assigned to miniature task that represent their future job. For example, a few grade schools in the Bronx assign students with managerial tasks and titles--line manager, paper passing manager, door manager, etc.--this affects their ability to achieve fully. Psychologically the student will believe that becoming manager will be the job the student will get after continuing school thus contributing to social reproduction of staying in the same social class. The students are not encouraged to become doctors, lawyers, poets, critical thinkers but encouraged to be a product for corporate use. Some schools would call this school-to-work program in which students are the product of corporate use. Nathanvt (talk)

References

This article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Not all schools just offer two tracks: vocational and general. School districts in the United States have AP, honors and college-bound tracks. International countries use competitive exams, which determine the high schools the students go to and once that is determined, they are tracked in either vocational or general. In that situation, it would be appropriate to separate pupils by academic ability into groups for all subjects within a school. With college-bound, honors, and AP tracks, it depends on if the student can handle the workload of those classes. Some students can be in 1 AP class but be in other honors classes. --Leosed (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see where "two tracks" was used. The article seems to purposely avoid numbers, since as soon as a number is chosen, someone else will come up with a different number. It does say "more academic" which could easily include AP, honors and college-bound. But, not to be confusing here, students taking all those "tracks" are, in the US, intending to attend college. It is a single broad track with narrower tracks inlaid. Calling them "different" tracks may suit the purpose of some other country but it would be confusing in the US. There are vocational, general, and college tracks. In the US nowdays, all tracks can wind up in college, though the vocational are a bit restricted on choice. The "general" would most likely need other classes either in secondary school or "on waiver" in college.

Having said that, the wording could be improved. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This text:

Students in less academic tracks acquire vocational skills such as welding or cosmetology, or business skills, such as typing or bookkeeping.

is absurd (students can acquire vocational skills at a vocational school). Students do not have to be in less academic tracks to acquire vocational skills. For instance, a high school student can choose to go to a vocational school on a half day basis and then come back to the regular high school and take courses that are needed for graduation. Clearly, the tracking system does not include acquiring vocational skills at a vocational school. What they mean is courses that are geared on a vocational track that can lead students to choose what careers they want in the future.

If they do not want to go to a vocational school, that is their choice. If they do go to a vocational school, it's not because they were in less academic tracks. If there are actually schools that force students in less academic tracks to acquire vocational skills, then the text should be placed in the country that does that instead of in the introduction. Neidisy (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No one owns the article. If you think it can be improved, feel free to do so. It appears to be purposely vague to include more countries. Most first world countries except the US and Canada, appear to place children at about 12 years of age into a "tracking" system where they do not have the option of taking other subjects. A person studying a foreign language cannot study welding. A person taking engine repair cannot study calculus. Student7 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Student7,

Both of those accounts are blocked now. It's a long-term abuser who was banned years ago but can't figure out how to stay away. She doesn't appear to know anything about education beyond her own personal experience. You can safely ignore her complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of my best friends are trolls!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeannie Oakes comment

Is Oakes really WP:RS. No bio on her (which is not a limiting factor in itself, of course). Phrase reads:

"Jeannie Oakes has theorized that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities."
-Okay. But how did they wind up in "low tracks?" Someone examined their skin color/ethnic background and "assigned" them? I think these are kids who generally do not do that well in school. So this remark, as paraphrased doesn't really stand the "smell" test IMO. Maybe it can be reworded.

"Rather, she argues that the ethnocentric claims of social Darwinists and the Anglo-Saxon-driven Americanization movement at the turn of the century combined to produce a strong push for "industrial" schooling, ultimately relegating the poorer minority students to vocational programs and a differentiated curriculum which she considers a lingering pattern in modern schools.[26]"

- Someone, meaning well, changed WASP to "Anglo Saxon." Alas, this makes no sense in context. We are not discussing anything that can be linked to the invaders of Britain in the 6th century, or whatever

- Maybe she's saying too much here. What is wrong with "vocational training?" Should people not be taught auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, etc.? And how do these people fare in the real world. Quite well, I believe!

- If she is saying that they are not really being well trained for anything, then the material should reflect that and be reworded. -(I do agree about better teachers being assigned higher phased students).

Please check the material to see whether it is worded correctly. Then let's discuss whether her material should be kept. (Trying to figure out from the two-year old discussion above, whether this was sort of covered or not. Can't decide). Student7 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that her book was published 26 years ago. That isn't, by itself, a good argument to rm the material. But there's been a lot of water over the dam since then: "No Child Left Behind," the abandonment of NCLB, Common Core standards, etc. Observations could be precise, but no longer applicable. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge from: Set (ability group)

It is proposed that Set (ability group) be merged into this article as the Set article is an orphan and its content is best explained within the context of Tracking (education). Feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)