In class we talked about grouping students based on their ability or tracking them. In elementary school I was always in the normal class, but I remember some of my classmates going into higher level classes. I wanted to be in those classes, so in my case I benefitted from this because I worked harder to get in those classes. In college I picked the college track and took certain classes, while others picked their track and took those classes. I liked this better because I knew that I wanted to go to college and got to take most of the classes I wanted to. While I took advantage of ability grouping and tracking some students may not. Those students often get left behind. While the lower level students spend time on drill and practice, the higher level classes are getting to do the enrichment activities and probably enjoy school more. Something like the debate team we saw is great for students of all different abilities to come together and work on something they can be proud of.
What do you think about this? Are we giving students a fair chance by grouping them based on their ability?

I was left out of the "AG" group the first year it was available to my class. It really didn't bother me. It bothered teachers that knew my academic capabilities and they insisted that the next year I be in the “AGâ€

I think that it is clear from studies that the higher tracking groups have more opportunities and benefit more from the program. Like most have said, they didn't get bored as easily, they were challenged, and they were more prepared for college. The issue is making sure that the lower tracking groups get just as good of an education. They may move at a slower rate, and they may not cover as much material, but they should be challenged as well and do activities that are not boring rote memorization. They need to have good teachers who can teach them well. This is what needs to happen if tracking is to continue. [/u]

In my elementary and middle schools, there was no tracking. We were all randomly placed in classrooms. I found this to be very beneficial. Students who needed more of a challenge were assigned extra things to do inside class. Those who fell behind were able to receive help after school.
When I went to high school, it was a whole different story. There was definitely tracking. I had never been considered and "AG" student , but it hadn't mattered in the past because I was with all kinds of different kids. I didn't even know what it was like to be in an "AG" program. I actually found this very discouraging that people would ask me if I was "AG". I felt like I wasn't as smart as these other kids who had always been in the "AG" programs. I think the fact that they were labeled "AG" and I wasn't, made me feel dumb and secluded. I think it's better to not label kids and put them in classes called "AG." In my experiences as a younger child, classes that had children with all levels ability worked very well.

To me, I lean a little more towards ability grouping. There is a chance for students to move up and hopefully, they will try harder to be in that higher position. Tracking is a little irrational for me. Students cannot move up. I especially think tracking is ridicolous if students can choose themselves. In high school, we had "honor" and "standard" classes. Students were able to choose which level they wanted to take. In eighth grade, when signing up for classes, my English teacher came around and helped us decide which level we should take. It was kind of sad to hear her tell students that she thinks they should be on a standard level...when I really think she was just trying to be honest. She had recommended me to go into honors. I stuck with honors until my senior year. I had maybe three or four classes total my senior year because my hours were finished and I really wanted to be done with school. Therefore, I did not want to take any extra hours. I placed myself into honors classes. I went to the academic office and switched to standard. One reason I took honors for so long was because I thought you had to be in honors classes to be an honor grad. I ended up making A-C's in my honor classes. I made straight A's during my senior year and sadly did not make an honor grad. I do regret moving down to standard, I knew I was better than that. I was just being lazy. I am not saying that the people in standard were dumb...no way. I just could have handled more work. Some of those people in my senior classes made honor grads. Yep - that's right. You could be in standard classes and be an HONOR grad. Kinda crazy! Also, during high school, I noticed a few people who put themselves in honor classes and they couldn't handle all the work. So I don't see how tracking helps. But ability groups...they hurt those who are at the lower level when self-esteem comes into play. Sure, hopefully they will want to try to move up to a higher level. But what happens when they can't? Will there ever be something better than ability grouping and tracking??

I do believe that tracking can have its benefits. I was able to be placed in AG classes in elementary school, and although I am sure it was different in the other class, we only attended AG for english and I believe that this truly helped out the teachers who were not with the AG children because they could focus their efforts on those who needed help with reading and grammar. We didn't do anything extracurricular or special in those classes, we were just required to do harder grammar and I even remember hating being in with the "smart" kids because we had to complete one book report a week! One a week! I don't believe that from my elementary school the tracking followed through into middle school completely, but I'm sure it had an influence. From my personal experience, I think tracking can have huge benefits and huge problems depending what side of it you are on. Personally, I enjoyed tracking because up until the point I was allowed to move into different classes I was bored and asked to do extra work or help out other students. I enjoyed being challenged in school and I think as long as everyone is being challenged and not simply being left out in their "tracking groups" then it has the possibility of being a successful idea.

I think ability tracking is successful. As others have said, ability tracking and regular tracking is very different. There are many things that prove that ability tracking is successful. I have been learning in my other classes that splitting up children in elementary school when they are learning how to read is the best and most effective way to help all the children. There should be a low group (those who cant read at all), a middle group, and a high group. The teacher should spend time with all groups and it is flexible for children if they are developing skills at a faster rate to move in the groups. I think this is how ability tracking should be. Groups split in order to benefit the student. Tracking in high school is very different. I think that it needs to be changed in order for students to change their minds about their group. I know as a high school student I was college prep because most of my other friends were and thats what my parents wanted me to be. However, if a student changes their mind, I think they should have ease in changing their groups.

I think that to ignore the possibility that ability tracking has a place is a bit too idealistic, the problem is how to refine it to make sure that it doesn't hold anyone back.

The situation that always bothered me with tracking, though it is also the teacher's decision, was that the higher the level--the better the teacher. In 7th grade I remember being placed in the two team (teacher) section of the grade hall (My school consited of two four team sections and one two team section per grade hall). It was very obvious that being a struggling student had something to do with being placed in the two team section. I can still remember how horrible and "burnt out" the two teachers in this section of the hall were, what a way to make struggling students feel even more rejected. The other problem I saw with this was the teachers had to teach two of the four main subjects(science, math, english, history), instead of having one well versed teacher per subject. How in the world did the administration think that this would help students understand these subjects better?

I totally agree with this point!! The problems in tracking and ability grouping seem to be rooted more in the quality of instruction and educator associated with the respective groups. It is quite and odd phenomenon, don't you think? In reality, the "better" teachers are the best equipped to really make a difference in the lives of children viewed as average or below average academically. However, it seems that when you get into the politics of schools systems, it is seen as a reward for being a good teacher to have the "easier", more ambitious groups of children, and not have to deal with the more challenging students.

One more thing...
I think we should consider something else about tracking and ability grouping--- and that is what we are taking away from the social and emotional development of children for the sake of keeping or excelerating the learning pace. As a child who was grouped in the equivilent of "AG"-- I missed out on a great deal socially! By spending all of my time with an elite group of students, with the exception of a few classes, I missed out on a lot of other experiences which are ultimately just as important and just as vital to learning. It really does have its limitations. While it may have its benefits, you have to think that developmentally school has other important aspects besides academic achievement. How are we supporting those needs?