Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route

In "Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route", Oakes begins by addressing the two arguments to student tracking and grouping. On the one hand, classes are supposed to be more catered to the particular "group". Advanced students are "groomed" to be successful and students who need more attention and help can get this extra help. However, on the other hand, grouping can have all kinds of negative effects on the low-tracking students. These students are given a label that sticks with them for all their school years and as a result they are given less academic opportunities. Oakes argues that high-tracking students may benefit from grouping, but low-tracking students certainly do not. However, Oakes also argues that with the proper changes it is possible to get the best of both worlds. 

Oakes names many changes that need to be made. One recommendation he makes is to focus on more content-based teaching rather than sequential lessons. Oakes also encourages the use of group work. If there are a variety of tasks at hand, each student gets the opportunity to focus on what they are best at. Oakes says to include a diversity of tasks into this group work in order to provide equal opportunity of success for everyone. Different abilities can conquer different tasks. The author also states that "real-world" problems are better suited for all students as opposed to abstract problems. Lastly, Oakes introduces the concept of student evaluation. This would mean the students are responsible for self-evaluating but also for asking for feedback and accepting criticism. Teacher evaluations should remain but should be more personalized. Rather than receiving a number or letter grade, elementary school students' success should be measured on a personal level. For example, how much the student has improved should be more valuable than where their test scores are. 

I think all of oakes's suggestions make perfect sense. I definitely have seen what Oakes is saying that higher placed students benefit from grouping much more than lower placed students. In my high school there were four groups. Although students could technically be in different levels for each class, this was rarely the case. A student who excels in English but places in the lowest level for science, math and social studies would not be given the opportunity to go into a higher level for their English class. Also, students rarely move up. Finn says in his article that the higher classes are given the best teachers. I also saw this in my high school. I was not in the highest level, but I was in the third level out of four. Even though I was in the second highest level, many of my teachers had degrees from Brown, Yale, etc. However, in the first level of four the teachers were certainly qualified, but not as qualified. They had degrees, but not from Ivy League schools. It is truly a shame that students are given such unequal opportunities. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ee0TqG0Hxg

I have provided a link to a video that explains some of the negative effects of grouping. 

Do you think Oakes' suggestions will actually eliminate the negative effects of grouping? Or do you think problems will persist?