Content uploaded by Beth Cara Rubin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Beth Cara Rubin on Jan 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Beth C. Rubin
Tracking and Detracking:
Debates,Evidence, and Best
Practices for a Heterogeneous
World
Although debate over tracking continues, many
schools and districts have attempted various de-
tracking reforms. Detracking efforts vary greatly
in method and scope. Assessments of detracking
are widely divergent as well, making it difficult to
gauge the effectiveness of the reform. Evidence
suggests that when implemented well, detracking
opens new academic opportunities for students.
Additionally, as difference and equity are, argu
-
ably, issues in all classrooms, detracking best
practices are potentially helpful for teachers and
students in tracked and detracked settings. This
article provides an overview of (a) the debate over
school tracking, (b) various attempts at de
-
tracking, and (c) best practices in detracked class
-
rooms and schools, highlighting instructional pra
-
ctices, institutional structures, and belief changes
that best support learning in heterogeneous
settings.
T
RACKING, THE SORTING AND GROUPING of
students for instruction based on an assess
-
ment of academic ability, is a long-standing orga
-
nizational practice of schooling in the United
States. Tracking has frequently been critiqued as
providing inadequate and inequitable education to
students in lower ability tracks, for separating stu
-
dents along race and class lines, and for perpetuat
-
ing unequal access to a college-bound curriculum.
Detracking, a reform in which students are placed
intentionally in mixed-ability heterogeneous
classes, is an attempt to remedy the negative ef
-
fects of tracking. The debate over the implications
of each of these forms of school organization is
ongoing, arousing great interest and fervor in edu
-
cators and noneducators alike.
In this overview, I discuss tracking and the cri
-
tiques that have been leveled against the practice
and describe various forms of detracking that have
4
THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 45(1), 4–14
Beth C. Rubin is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate
School of Education at Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey.
Correspondence should be addressed to Beth C. Ru
-
bin, Graduate School of Education, 10 Seminary Place,
Rutgers, The State University of NewJersey, NewBruns
-
wick, NJ 08901. E-mail: bcrubin@rci.rutgers.edu
emergedinthe past 20 years inresponsetothese cri
-
tiques. Also, I sort through the numerous studies of
detracking in practice to outline promising teach
-
ing practices for detracked classrooms and institu
-
tional reforms that support detracking, many of
which are described more fully in this issue. The
most powerful examples of detracking occur in
schools where changes in instruction, institutional
structures, and beliefs occur simultaneouslyto sup
-
port the academic success of all students in newly
challenging and stimulating settings.
Research on detracking and heterogeneous
grouping has relevance beyond detracked settings.
Most classes, even those in which students are
grouped by various indicators, are heterogeneous
in that they are composed of individuals with vary
-
ing interests, attitudes, talents, and backgrounds.
No matter one’s stance amid the political debates
over detracking, detracking best practices have
broad applicability as they are designed to support
student learning in heterogeneous settings.
Tracking and Its Critics
Tracks and ability groups, along with age-level
grades, are among the predominant organizing
practices of U.S. public schools (Wheelock,
1992). Not all students are in tracked classes for
the entire school day, but as students move on
through school they usually encounter an increas
-
ingly rigid ability-driven structure (Oakes, 1985;
Wheelock, 1992). Proponents of tracking argue
that ability-driven tracks make it easier for teach
-
ers to target instruction appropriately for varying
student needs (Hallinan, 1994).
Tracking occurs in a variety of forms within in
-
dividual schools. It may be overt, with counselors
working at times in consultation with students to
choose a particular class belonging to a certain
track. It may be automatic, with test scores from
junior high automatically determining a student’s
high school track. It may be covert, with grouping
done by teacher and counselor recommendation
and no sign in the master schedule to indicate that
one section of a particular class is any different
from another. Students are often aware of ability
grouping even when it is done in a covert manner
(Oakes, 1985; Wheelock, 1992).
Many researchers argue that the practice of
tracking is inherently unfair and that it plays a cru
-
cial role in the creation of inequalities within our
society (Goodlad & Oakes, 1988; Mehan, 1992;
Meehan et al., 1994; Oakes, 1986, 1992; Slavin,
1991, 1995). Critics argue that tracking serves as a
device for sorting students by race and class.
Moreover, many researchers claim that students in
different tracks do not receive the same quality of
education (Oakes, 1985; Page, 1987). These crit
-
ics hold that curriculum, teaching, and social in
-
teractions in the classroom are all affected by
tracking, to the detriment of students in the lower
track. The consequence, these researchers argue,
is a system that is demoralizing and demotivating
for the children, usually poor and of color, who
end up in the lowest tracks (Murphy & Hallinger,
1989; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992).
Indeed, the correspondence between school
tracking and structural inequalities found in the
larger society has been well documented. African
American, Latino, and low-income children of all
ethnicities are overrepresented in low tracks and
vocational programs (Oakes, 1992). In integrated
schools, tracking often resegregates students by
race, and tracking has been legally challenged as
amounting to de facto segregation (Welner &
Oakes, 1996). Tracking can be seen as a vital part
of how schools reproduce inequality, a structural
arrangement through which individuals come to
accept their own socioeconomic positions as inev
-
itable and natural.
Although curricular tracking was originally de
-
veloped to provide a more tailored educational ex
-
perience for the benefit of all students, the nega
-
tive impact of tracking on students who are
grouped low is clear from a variety of empirical
studies over several decades. In several studies,
Hallinan (Hallinan & Kubitschek, 1999; Sørensen
& Hallinan, 1986) found that students assigned to
low-ability groups scored lower on standardized
tests than if they had been placed in mixed or
high-ability groups. Braddock and Dawkins
(1993) analyzed National Education Longitudinal
Study (NELS) data and found that students in
lower tracks moved more slowly through the cur
-
5
Rubin Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World
riculum and did worse in school. Gamoran (1987)
found that the achievement gap between low- and
high-track students was larger than the gap be
-
tween students who leave high school without
graduating and high school graduates. He also
found that low-income students and students of
color were disproportionately represented in low
-
er tracks.
Recent research, most notably in the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands, extends these find
-
ings. Wiliam and Bartholomew (2004) concluded
that in the United Kingdom, one’s track (or set)
was more consequential for academic progress
than the school one attended. Researchers in the
Netherlands found that students in homogeneous
clusters became more interested in the academic
performance of their same-track peers, with a neg
-
ative effect on low achievers, and students in
mixed-ability groupings were less vulnerable to
this reference process (Meijnen & Guldemond,
2002).
Other researchers argue that tracking affects all
students negatively, regardless of track. Boaler,
Wiliam, and Brown (2000) concluded that stu-
dents in setted (tracked) math classes in the United
Kingdom experienced a curriculum polarization
where high-tracked students were forced to move
too rapidly through course material and low-
tracked students experienced restrictions in their
opportunities to learn. This was disadvantageous
to both groups, and students in both tracks re
-
ported dissatisfaction with their placement.
Stearns (2004) concluded, based on her analysis
of NELS data, that schools with a high degree of
tracking differentiation had a lower degree of in
-
terracial friendliness.InOff Track, a video pro
-
duced by Fine, Anand, Jordan, and Sherman
(1998), students and teachers in a detracked world
literature class argue that high-track students lose
out on diverse perspectives when they are tracked
because tracking segregates students by race and
class.
In the late 1980s and 1990s opposition to track
-
ing moved beyond the academic community and,
in some places, became policy. During this time
period, tracking was formally condemned by the
National Governors Association, the Carnegie
Council for Adolescent Development, the College
Board, The National Education Association, the
National Council of Teachers of English, the Cali
-
fornia Department of Education, the Massachu
-
setts State Legislature, and others (Welner &
Oakes, 1996). This led to a proliferation of
detracking reforms, many of which are discussed
in the following section.
Implementing Detracking
As noted earlier, in the last 20 years many edu
-
cational researchers have critiqued tracking and
other forms of ability grouping as an inequitable
educational practice, unsuccessful at meeting the
purported aim of improved academic achievement
for all students. This condemnation of tracking
has given rise to a variety of attempts at de-
tracking, the dismantling of ability-driven group-
ing practices. Although there is considerable vari-
ation in how it has been carried out, detracking
generally entails an attempt to group students het-
erogeneously as a means of ensuring that all stu-
dents, regardless of their race or class background
or their academic ability, have access to high-qual-
ity curriculum, teachers, and material resources.
Some of these variations on detracking are ex-
plored more fully later in this issue.
Detracking efforts have frequently generated
controversy and, in some communities, concerted
opposition. Those most likely to oppose these ef
-
forts are the parents of children who previously
had been placed in the higher tracks, and fear that
efforts to promote detracking will result in low
-
ered academic standards. With political and eco
-
nomic resources on their side, such parents have
succeeded in blocking detracking efforts in some
schools and communities (Oakes, Quartz, Ryan,
& Lipton, 2000; Wells & Serna, 1996; Welner,
2001). In other communities, opponents of track
-
ing have squared off with its defenders in drawn-
out conflicts that have involved legal challenges,
the use of local referendums, and even street pro
-
tests (Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997).
Despite the controversy, variations of de
-
tracking have been implemented in many schools
6
Detracking and Heterogeneous Grouping
and, in some cases, entire school districts. Schools
and school districts have taken widely divergent
approaches to detracking. On one end of the spec
-
trum are deep restructuring efforts, such as the
complete elimination of ability grouping in all
subject areas throughout an entire school district.
On the other end are changes that do not directly
affect a school’s track structure, such as providing
more access to high-track classes for students for
-
merly in lower tracks.
There are a number of large-scale examples of
detracking. Grossman and Ancess (2004) de
-
scribed a suburban school district in the Northeast
that detracked math from elementary school
through the end of high school. Oxley (1994) de
-
scribed the reorganization of several high schools
into smaller, detracked subunits. At Southside
High School in Rockville Centre, New York, de
-
tracking reform began in English and social stud-
ies, then continued into science and finally to math
classrooms (Garrity, 2004; “Tracking Trounces
Test Scores,” 2004; Welner & Burris, this issue).
In this school, after detracking in all subjects, 71%
of low-income students passed the state’s Regents
exam, and the Regents diploma rate rose to from
58% to 96%. Welner and Burris (this issue) and
Alvarez and Mehan (this issue) describe highly
successful school-wide detracking efforts.
Other efforts are on a smaller scale. Some are
limited to particular subject areas, frequently lan
-
guage arts and social studies in a cored structure;
others implement detracking at a specific grade
level or one subject at a particular grade level. At
some schools, detracking is in the hands of the
students, who are allowed to self-select into
higher levels if they choose to do so. In other
schools, students are chosen to take part in col
-
lege preparatory courses, and given academic
and social support to help them succeed. Such
reforms provide a detracked experience or
greater access to previously exclusive courses for
some students, while maintaining a track struc
-
ture in the rest of the school. A number of recent
studies have found positive results for this sort of
detracking and the heterogeneous grouping that
it creates (Cooper, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, &
Schumm, 1998; Mehan & Hubbard, 1999;
Mehan, Hubbard, & Villanueva, 1994;
Rothenberg, McDermott, & Martin, 1998).
The broad range of reforms falling under the
heading of detracking creates a conundrum for
judging its success; it is difficult to make an over
-
arching assessment of a reform that has been im
-
plemented in such a wide variety of ways (see Ru
-
bin & Noguera, 2004, for a more in-depth
summary of research on the effectiveness of de
-
tracking). Although researchers claim positive,
negative, and mixed effects of detracking on stu
-
dents’ school performance, my review of the liter
-
ature and my work in detracking schools leads me
to conclude that the most successful instances of
detracking combine deep structural reform with
thoughtful pedagogical change, and are under
-
girded by an engagement with students’ and teach
-
ers’ beliefs around notions of ability and achieve
-
ment. When these facets converge, the positive
results for students are startling.
Detracking Institutions, Instruction,
and Beliefs: Best Practices
for a Heterogeneous World
A review of the detracking literature reveals a
number of best practices that can be of use to edu-
cators working in a variety of settings. As previ-
ously noted, the most powerful reforms engage on
several levels at once: grappling with teacher, stu
-
dent, and community beliefs; reshaping instruc
-
tional practices; and reforming school structures.
This section explores best practices in each of
these three areas, noting when they overlap.
Best Practices for Engaging With Beliefs
Underlying belief systems of teachers, stu
-
dents, and communities come into play in de
-
tracking schools and classrooms. In a detracked
ninth-grade program at a diverse urban school, for
example, conflict between teachers’ and students’
underlying beliefs about difference and the social
world of the school interfered with successful de
-
tracking (Rubin, 2003b). Indeed, teachers’ beliefs
about ability appear to deeply affect the enactment
7
Rubin Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World
of detracking (Rubin, 2005). Students’ beliefs
about their own abilities and their emerging identi
-
ties amid the social world of the school complicate
the notion of student choice as a mechanism for
detracking (Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002).
Community-wide beliefs about race and ability
can also inhibit detracking reform (Oakes et al.,
1997; Wells & Serna, 1996). Engaging with
teacher, student, and community beliefs is a fun
-
damental part of successful detracking work.
Yonezawa and Jones (this issue) focus on stu
-
dents’ perspectives on detracking reform, arguing
that many students are concerned about inequita
-
ble education across tracks and want to see
changes in grouping practices, but are concerned
that teachers need to be retrained for such
changes to be effective. Watanabe (this issue)
and Lotan (this issue) pick up where Yonezawa
and Jones leave off, describing effective ways to
retrain teachers in this vein. Watanabe explores
teacher inquiry groups as a means of helping
practicing teachers wrestle with the preconcep-
tions about ability and difference that they bring
to a newly detracked setting. Such groups, she
argues, encourage teachers to examine and chal-
lenge underlying beliefs to arrive at more equita-
ble classroom practice. Lotan reaches back fur-
ther, describing how preservice teachers can be
trained in ways that broaden their thinking about
the capacities of their students and provide them
with concrete guidance for teaching in heteroge
-
neous settings.
In the classroom, the most effective strategies
for detracking encourage and incorporate student
and teacher redefinitions of underlying beliefs
about ability. For example, Herrenkohl (this issue)
describes intellectual role taking, an instructional
practice that encourages students to expand their
own views of themselves as learners, helping them
to take on roles within the classroom that entail
higher order thinking and academic engagement.
Cone’s (this issue) first-person case study of a
detracked ninth-grade English class demonstrates
how students’ apprenticeship into the academic
and social discourses of high school English is
fundamental to their success in the detracked set
-
ting. Other instructional practices in this vein are
described later, and in more detail in the individual
articles in this issue.
On a community level, researchers report that
underlying discourses of race and ability enter into
schools’ struggles with detracking, leading many
parents with resources to oppose the reform.
Welner and Burris (this issue) describe how school
leaders and teachers used clear explanations and
hard data to convince stakeholders of the value of
detracking, despite initial resistance by some
members of the community. This strategy shifted
underlying beliefs about students’ potential and
the need for tracking. Belief change and student
achievement gains were linked in this instance, in
-
dicating their interwoven presence in effective de
-
tracking reform.
Instructional Best Practices
Freedman, Delp, and Crawford (2005) noted
that effective teaching in detracked classrooms is
less about using particular activity systems such as
small group work, and more about building from
an underlying set of principles. These include: (a)
building a learning community that respects and
makes productive use of diverse contributions
from varied learners; (b) providing opportunities
for diverse ways of learning; (c) providing support
to individuals as needed; (d) challenging all stu
-
dents; (e) keeping learners actively involved; (f)
building a year-long curriculum, which promotes
the recycling of structures and ideas, with room
for ever deepening levels of complexity; and (g)
considering learners to be in control of their learn
-
ing and building structures that support them in
challenging themselves.
The detracking literature is filled with exam
-
ples of instructional or classroom-based best prac
-
tices that echo this framework. These include em
-
ploying curricula and pedagogies with multiple
points of entry that are challenging, relevant, and
engaging; building a classroom community that
includes all learners; and incorporating targeted
and effective support for students. As noted previ
-
ously, many of these practices help students to re
-
define their own capacities, shifting their sense of
8
Detracking and Heterogeneous Grouping
themselves as students so they can take advantage
of a newly challenging curriculum.
Curriculum and pedagogy for detracking: Ac
-
cess, interest, challenge, relevance. Many con
-
tributors to this issue note that a curriculum that
provides multiple entry points and is accessible to
students working at a variety of levels is essential
for detracking. In math this might take the form of
group-worthy problems that allow learners to
work together on problems that teach fundamental
mathematical principles (Boaler, this issue; Horn,
this issue). In English this could entail a careful
mix of texts and assignments to enfranchise and
apprentice all students as readers and writers. Ru
-
bin (2005) described a ninth-grade social studies
classroom in which the teacher spiraled through a
variety of projects with her global studies stu-
dents—travel journals, maps, research papers,
PowerPoint presentations—allowing all of the
students in her class to excel at various points, and
expanding their range of skills. These are activi-
ties that every student in the class can participate
in at his or her own level of expertise, showcasing
and engaging a multiplicity of skills, talents, and
learning styles.
Students in detracked settings appear to benefit
from a curriculum that is enticing, open to their in-
terests, and varied in approach. Tomlinson (2003)
suggested that a coherent, important, and inviting
curriculum is the first step in reaching all learners
in a heterogeneous classroom. In his detracked
English classroom, for example, Peterson
(1998–1999) used a structured project approach,
in which students created magazine-sized book
-
lets following a prescribed outline. In this class,
students also participated in role plays, wrote po
-
etry, and showed their learning in multiple ways.
Freedman et al. (2005) described the multimodal
approach taken in a detracked middle school Eng
-
lish classroom, integrating drawing, music, and
dance into the curriculum. Related to this is the
use of culturally relevant pedagogy—building on
students’ own interests and knowledge, incorpo
-
rating students’ real-life experiences into the cur
-
riculum, and using activities that showcase stu
-
dents’ strengths (Ladson-Billings, 1995). In
detracked classrooms, Rubin and Noguera (2004)
noticed that when students’ knowledge and skills
were drawn on, previously quiet and disengaged
students became active participants.
A flexible approach to grouping often seems
to be part of successful detracking efforts.
Tomlinson (2001) recommended an approach in
which grouping is frequently reconfigured based
on content, project, and ongoing evaluation. Pe
-
terson (1998–1999) used constantly shifting
groups in his English class, based on a variety of
aspects, including student interest, reading skills,
and background knowledge. In shifting students’
reading groups every 2 weeks, with a different
novel for each group, he created an element of
self-selection by interest. Flexible grouping al
-
lows students to get to know all of their class
-
mates, fosters the sense that ability is not fixed
and given, and allows the teacher to target in-
struction more effectively.
Building students’ skills of analysis and cri-
tique is another detracking best practice. In the
Advancement Via Individual Determination
(AVID) program, lower achieving students of
color enrolled in college preparatory courses and
in a support class that developed their academic
skills and helped them to foster an academic iden-
tity. This support class was a place where students
developed their critiques of the school’s (and of
society’s) opportunity structure and learned how
to participate effectively in that structure (Mehan
et al., 1994). Morrell and Collatos (2003) de
-
scribed similar effects in a support program for
students of color in a high-ranking California high
school. In their description of a heterogeneous
small learning community, Keiser and Stein
(2003) explored how teaching students the skills
of critique and democratic participation empow
-
ered students of color in this integrated setting. In
this issue, Cone, Boaler, Horn, Herrenkohl, and
Hyland all describe innovative pedagogies to build
students’ analytical capacities that are specific to
particular content areas. Such strategies play the
dual role of cultivating higher order thinking skills
and making the curriculum more dynamic, inter
-
esting, and meaningful for students.
9
Rubin Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World
Community building for detracking. Many
detracking researchers note that curriculum and
pedagogy do not take place in a vacuum. De
-
tracking must be accompanied by a community-
building effort that makes the heterogeneous
classroom a safe and supportive place for all stu
-
dents. Such efforts frequently overlap with curric
-
ular and pedagogical best practices, as in the
mathematics classrooms of Railside High School,
where the curriculum necessitated students’ mu
-
tual academic support of one another, resulting in
a deepened sense of community across differences
(Boaler, this issue). Cone (this issue) established
mutual respect and a community feel through the
sharing of autobiographical statements at the be
-
ginning of the school year and the incorporation of
reading groups into her curriculum. Freedman et
al. (2005) described how a teacher began the year
with a consideration and adoption of a common
moral and ethical code based on the values of dig-
nity, respect, and integrity. These values became a
community reference point and part of the actual
curriculum, integrated into the students’ study of
literature. Addressing the social and community
dimensions of detracking is essential for avoiding
the refragmentation of the class into within-class
tracks based on ethnicity or perceived ability that
can impede the academic progress of students in
detracked settings.
Academic support for detracking. The suc
-
cess of detracking efforts, particularly for students
who were previously tracked low, hinges on stu
-
dents’ access to meaningful academic support.
Such support must be built into the detracked
classroom itself, as well as into the structure of the
school day (as described in the next section).
Within the detracked classroom itself, several spe
-
cific scaffolding strategies have proven success
-
ful. Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998) found
that teaching students reading comprehension
strategies and having them apply these strategies
to social studies textbooks in heterogeneous stu
-
dent-led groups resulted in an improvement in per
-
formance on assessments. Horton and Lovitt
(1989) found that study guides helped students in
heterogeneously grouped classes of students with
and without learning disabilities.
The structure of the curriculum itself can pro
-
vide support for students. Freedman et al. (2005)
and Horn (this issue) describe curricula in English
and math that recycle or loop key ideas to provide
students with multiple opportunities to learn im
-
portant concepts at varying levels of complexity.
Providing individualized support for students
within the context of the detracked classroom
through such activities as reading journals and tar
-
geted assignments appears effective as well. Insti
-
tutional support for students is described next.
Institutional Best Practices
Reforming institutional structures to better
meet student needs is critical to the success of
detracking efforts. Institutional reforms include
the creation of supplemental support classes to as-
sist students who are struggling in one or more
subject areas, meaningful support for teachers
striving to implement detracking reform, and
whole-school and district changes that create
deeper roots for classroom-level detracking
reform.
The level of academic work in the detracked
classroom can present a challenge to students who
are less adept at various tasks than their peers.
Support classes, sometimes referred to as backup
classes, can provide the essential bridge between
struggling students and the new opportunities
available to them in detracked settings. Such
classes should be designed to help students catch
up on skills and concepts they may have missed
along the way, and to support them in completing
their daily work in the detracked class. At a pre
-
dominantly affluent suburban high school, stu
-
dents enrolled in a structured support class were
better able to meet the challenges of their
detracked English and social studies classes than
students without such support. These students ap
-
proached their detracked classes with greater con
-
fidence because they knew they would receive
time and assistance to complete reading and writ
-
ing assignments in another setting (Rubin, 2003a).
Similar findings have been generated from re
-
search on programs aimed at bringing low-income
10
Detracking and Heterogeneous Grouping
students of color, formerly tracked low, into hon
-
ors and advanced placement courses by providing
them with complementary support (Mehan, Hub
-
bard, Villanueva, & Lintz, 1996). At Southside
High School, students are enrolled in small sup
-
port classes in English, mathematics, and science,
taught by subject area teachers.
Teachers need time and resources to accom
-
plish the sorts of instructional and belief changes
described in previous sections. In the Rockville
Centre school district, teachers were paid stipends
to design new curriculum, were given common
planning time by department, and time to work
with students was built into the contract (Ameri
-
can Youth Policy Forum, 2003). At another
school, detracking was supported by district-wide
professional development on differentiated in
-
struction. At schools where detracking was not ac
-
companied by time and resources for professional
development and instructional retooling, teachers
floundered, frequently reverting to practices com-
mon in tracked settings (Rubin & Noguera, 2004).
Departmental, school, and district-wide re-
forms embody a more holistic approach, creating
a hospitable context for detracking classrooms
and the students and teachers within them. Horn
(this issue) describes how two different schools
supported a full detracking effort in mathematics
(often considered the most difficult subject to
detrack) through a raft of changes. These included
changes in teachers’ views of the subject to focus
on connections and meaning, curricular reforms to
center courses on the study of important mathe
-
matical ideas, and incorporation of new pedago
-
gies to broaden students’ notions of what it meant
to be good at math. This department-wide
approach ensured that difficult but necessary
changes were made in all mathematics class
-
rooms, providing a solid framework for the
schools’ ambitious detracking efforts.
School and district-wide reforms provide an
even deeper foundation for detracking. Alvarez
and Mehan (this issue) describe the efforts of the
Preuss School on the University of California, San
Diego campus, a school dedicated to preparing all
700 of its low-income students to be eligible to at
-
tend college. At this school, a broad range of so
-
cial and academic supports create a challenging
and encouraging environment that produces suc
-
cess in a detracked context for previously
underserved students. District-wide reforms are
particularly useful in helping to get at the root
causes of students’ low performance in certain ar
-
eas. In Rockville Centre, troubled by students’ dif
-
ficulties in high-level mathematics and science
courses, district administrators decided to begin
the implementation of heterogeneous grouping
earlier in these areas to increase students’ success
in later grades (Welner & Burris, this issue). The
district eliminated tracking in math beginning in
sixth grade and phased out the gifted and talented
program that began in fourth grade, integrating a
district-wide enrichment program for all students.
As they dismantled middle school tracking they
required accelerated math for all students and a lab
science for all eighth graders.
Such changes go far beyond the elimination of
tracks for a single course or grade level; they ad-
dress the multiple causes of the academic achieve-
ment gap and provide teachers the time and assis-
tance they need to revolutionize their approach to
the classroom. As Rubin and Noguera (2004)
wrote:
Although detracking itself may seem like a substan-
tial alteration of the usual manner of business in our
public schools, even deeper changes in school struc
-
ture and distribution of institutional resources may
be necessary for the reform to reach its intended
goals of increasing equity and access for previously
underserved students. For detracking to truly serve
those whom it was intended to benefit, schools may
need to put more resources into measures that sup
-
port these students. This may include ensuring that
detracked classes are smaller and therefore able to
provide more personalized support for students. It is
also helpful to add classes and programs designed to
accelerate the skills development of students who
were previously tracked low. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, teachers who will be required to
teach detracked classes must be provided substantial
support and training on how to teach such classes.
They may also need the opportunity to meet regu
-
larly as a group, to observe each other teach, and to
share and analyze student work so that they can sup
-
port each other in meeting the academic goals of this
reform. (p. 98)
11
Rubin Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World
Institutional reforms are the backbone of suc
-
cessful detracking, providing a broader context for
classroom-level changes and setting the stage for
the shifts in student, teacher, and community be
-
liefs that are essential to any flourishing detrack
-
ing effort.
Conclusion
Whether or not detracking itself becomes a
prevalent practice, issues of equity and difference
will remain central to the concerns of educators.
Heterogeneity is the norm rather than the excep
-
tion in school classrooms. All classrooms are het
-
erogeneous, made up of individuals with varying
interests, attitudes, talents, and backgrounds. Fur
-
thermore, as the inclusion of special education
students and English language learners becomes
prevalent in tracked and detracked settings, the is-
sue of heterogeneity is at the forefront of teachers’
concerns more than ever. The best practices drawn
from research in detracked settings can be of use
to all concerned educators. Detracking, when
carefully implemented, involves a set of
intuitional, instructional, and belief changes that
provide outstanding educational opportunities for
all students.
References
American Youth Policy Forum. (2003). Creating equita
-
ble high schools: Strategies to eliminate tracking and
ability grouping. Retrieved October 29, 2004, from
www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2003/fb121203.htm
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’
experiences of ability grouping—Disaffection, po
-
larization and the construction of failure. British Ed
-
ucational Research Journal, 26, 631–648.
Braddock, J. H., & Dawkins, M. (1993). Ability group
-
ing, aspirations, and attainments: Evidence from the
National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.
Journal of Negro Education, 62, 324–336.
Cooper, R. (1996). Detracking reform in an urban Cali
-
fornia high school: Improving the schooling experi
-
ences of African American students. Journal of Ne
-
gro Education, 65, 190–208.
Fine, M., Anand, B., Jordan, C., & Sherman, D. (1998).
Off track: Classroom privilege for all [Video]. New
York: Teachers’ College Press.
Freedman, S. W., Delp, V., & Crawford, S. M. (2005).
Teaching English in untracked classrooms. Research
in the Teaching of English, 40(1), 62–126.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school
learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60,
135–155.
Garrity, D. (2004). Detracking with vigilance. The
School Administrator. Retrieved October 29, 2004,
from www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2004_08/garrity.
htm
Goodlad, J., & Oakes, J. (1988). We must offer equal ac
-
cess to knowledge. Educational Leadership, 45(5),
16–22.
Grossman, F., & Ancess, J. (2004). Narrowing the gap
in affluent schools. Educational Leadership, 62(3),
70–73.
Hallinan, M. (1994). School differences in tracking ef
-
fects on achievement. Social Forces, 72, 799–820.
Hallinan, M., & Kubitschek, W. (1999). Curriculum dif-
ferentiation and high school achievement. Social
Psychology of Education, 3, 41–62.
Horton, S., & Lovitt, T. (1989). Using study guides with
three classifications of secondary students. The
Journal of Special Education, 22, 447–462.
Keiser, D., & Stein, S. (2003). “We have a motion on the
floor”: Montclair High School and the Civics and
Government Institute. In B. Rubin & E. Silva (Eds.),
Critical voices in school reform: Students living
through change (pp. 171–187). London: Routledge
Falmer.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collab
-
orative strategic reading during social studies in het
-
erogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elemen
-
tary School Journal, 99, 3–22.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). The dreamkeepers: Suc
-
cessful teachers of African American children. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools:
The contribution of interpretive studies. Sociology of
Education, 65, 1–20.
Mehan, H., & Hubbard, L. (1999). Tracking
“untracking”: Evaluating the effectiveness of an ed
-
ucational innovation. Center for Research on Edu
-
cation, Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved October
29, 2004, from www.cal.org/crede/pubs/ResBrief
-
3.htm.
Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., & Villanueva, I. (1994).
Forming academic identities: Accommodation
12
Detracking and Heterogeneous Grouping
without assimilation among involuntary minorities.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25,
91–117.
Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., Villanueva, I., & Lintz, A.
(1996). Constructing school success: The conse
-
quences of untracking low achieving students. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Meijnen, G., & Guldemond, H. (2002). Grouping in pri
-
mary schools and reference processes. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 8, 229–248.
Morrell, E., & Collatos, A. (2003). Apprenticing urban
youth as critical researchers: Implications for in
-
creasing equity and access in diverse urban
schools. In E. Morrell, A. Collatos, & E. Silva
(Eds.), Critical voices in school reform: Students
living through change (pp. 113–131). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1989). Equity as access to
learning: Curricular and instructional treatment dif
-
ferences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 129–149.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1986). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric
of reform: Why schools don’t change. Journal of Ed-
ucation, 168, 60–80.
Oakes, J. (1992). Detracking schools: Early lessons
from the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 448–454.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. (1992). Curriculum
differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and mean-
ings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.
Oakes, J., Quartz, K., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000).
Becoming good American schools: The struggle for
civic virtue in school reform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997).
Detracking: The social construction of ability, cul
-
tural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers
College Record, 98, 482–510.
Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing schools into small units:
Alternatives to homogeneous grouping. Phi Delta
Kappan, 75, 521–526.
Page, R. (1987). Lower track classes at a college prepara
-
tory high school: A caricature of educational encoun
-
ters. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.), Interpreta
-
tive ethnography: At home and abroad (pp. 91–117).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Peterson, B. (1998–1999). Tracking and the project
method. Rethinking Schools, 13. Retrieved Decem
-
ber 7, 2005, from www.rethinkingschools.org/ar
-
chive/13_02/track.shtml
Rothenberg, J., McDermott, P., & Martin, G. (1998).
Changes in pedagogy: A qualitative result of teach
-
ing heterogeneous classes. Teaching & Teacher Edu
-
cation, 14, 633–642.
Rubin, B. C. (2003a). “I’m not getting any F’s”: What
“at-risk” students say about the support they need.
In B. Rubin & E. Silva (Eds.), Critical voices in
school reform: Students living through change (pp.
188–207). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rubin, B. C. (2003b). Unpacking detracking: When
progressive pedagogy meets students’ social worlds.
American Educational Research Journal, 40,
539–573.
Rubin, B. C. (2005). Detracking in context: A study of
detracking in three racially and socioeconomically
distinct schools. Paper presented April 2005 at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Re
-
search Association, Montreal, Canada.
Rubin, B., & Noguera, P. (2004). Tracking detracking:
Sorting through the dilemmas and possibilities of
detracking in practice. Equity & Excellence in Edu-
cation, 37, 92–101.
Slavin, R. (1991). Are cooperative learning and
“untracking” harmful to the gifted? Education Lead-
ership, 48(6), 68–71.
Slavin, R. (1995). Detracking and its detractors: Flawed
evidence, flawed values. Phi Delta Kappan, 77,
220–221.
Sørensen, A., & Hallinan, M. (1986). The effects of
ability grouping on growth in academic achieve-
ment. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
519–542.
Stearns, E. (2004). Interracial friendliness and the social
organization of schools. Youth & Society, 35, 395–
419.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction
in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Edu
-
cation Leadership, 61(2), 6–11.
Tracking trounces test scores. (2004). Education Di
-
gest, 69(7), 15–17.
Wells, A., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture:
Understanding local political resistance to detrack
-
ing in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 66, 93–118.
Welner, K. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When
community control collides with educational equity.
New York: SUNY Press.
Welner, K., & Oakes, J. (1996). (Li)ability grouping:
The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to
13
Rubin Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World
legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review, 65,
451–470.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “un
-
tracking” can save America’s schools. New York:
New Press.
Wiliam, D., & Bartholomew, H. (2004). It’s not which
school but which set you’re in that matters: The in
-
fluence of ability grouping practices on student
progress in mathematics. British Educational Re
-
search Journal, 30, 279–293.
Yonezawa, S., Wells, A., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing
tracks: Freedom of choice in detracking schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37–67.
14
Detracking and Heterogeneous Grouping
