I am, in certain respects, the product of what I call “crude tracking.” I attended a typical public high school in exurban Cleveland, Ohio, where I excelled at three things: words, art, and disruption. Because of the latter, and despite the former two, I was sidetracked to the mediocre classes, often with the attendant riff-raff of students who made no pretense of wanting to be in school.
I now see how my academic mapping was informed by my non-ideal behavior, causing my schooling prescription to be written thusly: “Promising student, but a handful; segregate from the high-performers.”
Recently, CJ Libassi made the case for tracking students according to academic performance. CJ was swayed by recent studies in Kenya and Massachusetts showing that tracking was not only beneficial for students, but also for teachers, enhancing curriculum focus and pedagogical ease that comes with a more homogenous group of learners.
But I say it’s time for a new perspective on student tracking.
I now see how my academic mapping was informed by my non-ideal behavior, causing my schooling prescription to be written thusly: “Promising student, but a handful; segregate from the high-performers.”
Recently, CJ Libassi made the case for tracking students according to academic performance. CJ was swayed by recent studies in Kenya and Massachusetts showing that tracking was not only beneficial for students, but also for teachers, enhancing curriculum focus and pedagogical ease that comes with a more homogenous group of learners.
But I say it’s time for a new perspective on student tracking.
RSS Feed