EDFON 430 Final – Ball State

Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

I. Define tracking

a. Sequence of courses focused on an occupational Outcome
b. A combined method of ability grouping and curriculum differentiation
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

II. What type of study did Oakes conduct?

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now
a. Studied at 38 schools across the US, & 300 classrooms
b. Decided to look at:
i. Knowledge and skills
ii. Learning activities
iii. Curriculum content
iv. Instructional quality
v. Classroom climate
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

III. What were her findings?

a. found a disproportionate impact on poor children and students of color.
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

IV. What beliefs underlie tracking?

a. Students differ greatly in academic potential.
b. Separation is necessary to manage the difference.
c. Academic aptitude characteristics are stable and not generally alterable.
d. Classification can be accurately and easily accomplished What effect does tracking actually have?
e. Placement in low tracks is primarily determined by?
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

V. The common and predictable “characteristics” of tracking

a. Students’ intellectual performance is judged, and these judgments are the basis of group placements
b. Classroom are labeled in terms of the performance levels of the student, convey the degree of performance expected
c. The groups that are formed are not merely a collection of different but equally valued instructional groups. They form a hierarchy in schools.
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

VI. Disproportionate impact

a. a disproportionate impact on poor children and students of color. These students are more likely to find themselves labeled as slow learners even when their achievement levels are strong. For reasons such as these, it is not surprising that tracking has acquired an “undemocratic” aura.
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

VII. What impact does tracking have?

a. Harmful to the learning process and contradictory to aims of education
b. Determined by race, class, and socioeconomic status, perpetuates inequality (p. 263)
c. lower tracks suffer from less access to knowledge, fewer opportunities to learn classroom climate is counterproductive (p. 267-269).
d. students who need more instruction, time, and attention are receiving less
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

VIII. Classroom climate

a. High tracking
i. Teachers are excited and enthusiastic
ii. Kids are being encouraged differently, different expectations
iii. Students get along better
b. Low tracking
i. Teachers aren’t excited
ii. Counter productive
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

Access to knowledge

a. High tracking
i. High status knowledge
b. Low Tracking
i. Low status knowledge
Does Tracking Create Educational Inequality?

X. Opportunities to learn

a. High tracking
i. More time spent on academics
b. Low track
i. Fewer opportunities to learn
ii. Less time spent on learning
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind

a. A need for national policy that enables schools to meet the intellectual demands of the twenty-first century.
b. Needed to Pay off the educational debt
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Diversity Penalty

a. When any one of the sub groups fails the school fails.
i. The more diverse your school is the more probability you have to fail.
b. Failure happens as states raise their proficiency levels to a national benchmark set far above grade level
c. Outcome
i. Schools are encouraged to get rid of the students
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

two way accountability

a. The child and the school are accountable to the state for test performance, but the state is not accountable to the school or the student to provide adequate resources
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Dropout rates

Recent studies in Massachusetts, New York and Texas show how schools have raised test scores while “losing” large numbers of low-scoring students.
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Funding

The funding allocated by NCLB–less than 10 percent of most schools’ budgets–does not meet the needs of the under-resourced schools, where many students currently struggle to learn.
The law does not require that states demonstrate progress toward equitable and adequate funding or greater opportunities to learn.
Same issue with “highly qualified teachers”
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Accountability

This system requires testing every student in math, reading and, soon, science and issuing sanctions to schools that do not show sufficient progress for each subpopulation of students toward an abstract goal of “100 percent proficiency” on state tests–with benchmarks that vary from state to state.
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Lawsuits

One state and a national teachers association have brought lawsuits against the federal government based on the unfunded costs and dysfunctional side effects of the law.

School funding lawsuits brought in more than twenty-five states describe apartheid schools serving low-income students of color with crumbling facilities, overcrowded classrooms, out-of-date textbooks

Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Inequalities

NCLB Shines a spotlight on longstanding inequalities

The law does not address the profound educational inequalities that plague our nation

Evaluating No Child Left Behind

How the US compares internationally

Ranks 28th out of 40 Countries
Right above Latvia
Only 75percent graduation rate

Other Countries
-95% graduation rate
-Central and equitable funding
-Emphasis on early childhood funding
-Better prepared teachers
-Competitive salaries

Evaluating No Child Left Behind

‘Marshall Plan for Teaching’

a. Recruits new teachers using service scholarships that underwrite their preparation for high-need fields and locations and adds incentives for expert veteran teachers
b. Strengthens teacher’s preparation through support for professional development schools, like teaching hospitals
c. Improves teachers retention and effectiveness by insuring that novices have mentoring support during their early years, when 30 percent of them drop out.
Evaluating No Child Left Behind

Linda Darling-Hammond’s suggestions for school reform

From Equity to Excellence

Describe the role of standards, testing, educational equity, & school reform

From Equity to Excellence

A Nation at Risk

From Equity to Excellence

Describe the educational reform agenda and legacy of the Reagan years

From Equity to Excellence

Describe the reform agenda, post Ronald Reagan

From Equity to Excellence

School choice

From Equity to Excellence

The voucher movement

From Equity to Excellence

Privatization

From Equity to Excellence

Charter schools

From Equity to Excellence

Sputnik

From Equity to Excellence

NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)

From Equity to Excellence

America 2000: An Education Strategy

From Equity to Excellence

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

From Equity to Excellence

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

From Equity to Excellence

Head Start

From Equity to Excellence

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

From Equity to Excellence

Cultural literacy

From Equity to Excellence

Alternative School Management Options

From Equity to Excellence

Site-based management

From Equity to Excellence

Drugs and violence –Zero tolerance

From Equity to Excellence

The “manufactured crisis” – David Berliner

From Equity to Excellence

Teacher Education/Fast Track Programs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

x

Hi!
I'm Erick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out