This just might be the cynic in me and to a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate. But as we discussed Tracking in class it occured to me that it resembles our society as a greater whole. I suppose to a certain exent every public institution does; however schools and especially tracking lay out our three tiered society so well. There are those at the very top, well educated, successful in every respect, etc.. The second level consists of "normal" people, working to support themselves and their families, etc.. And the third level consists of the uneducated. Those who didnt recongnize the value of an education. I think the results of tracking are horrendous. But, and I'm playing devil's advocate, doesnt tracking help weed out the students who really could care less. If you chose the vocational route, you obviously dont need AP English, etc... It just helps educators to be more focused in their instruction. And everyone thinks they've helped each student to the exent they desired. However, what is wrong about tracking is that it doesnt give any student the chance. What if one more course, one more teacher would have changed their minds from vocational to university track? Just some thoughts.

A similar thought came to my mind during that discussion as well. If we didn't have tracking and teachers moved at the pace of the classroom then some students would be left behind while others would be kept from learning to their full potential. Unfortunately tracking does serve its purpose because it serves the needs of certain students.

I agree with your idea in principal, that we should identify strengths and weaknesses in our students and approach each differently. Tracking would seem an excellent way to help underprivillaged students get the benefits of greater attention and better instruction.

Unfortunately, the allocation of school's resources do not usually focus on the struggling or "normal" students. The best teachers, the most engaging teaching methods, and the most resources for classrooms are used for the Advanced Placement courses. This seems to me to be the exact oppopsite of the way it should be.

A similar and bizzare reversal of this nature can be seen in the No Child Left Behind reforms. Schools that do poorly on standardized testing are stripped of their funding! Shouldn't it be the EXACT OPPOSITE?

It is typical of my attitudes towards the system in general, but I feel that it is all a complex system designed to maintain the status quo.

I agree with the opinions that have been presented, especially about the advanced placement classes. The only reason that I took so many different AP classes was because those were the best teachers in the school. Those teachers put so much passion and interest in my education and all I could think about was that I wished I had teachers like them long before my junior and senior year of high school. It seems to be a bonus that you get the good teachers if you perform well, and vice versa with the teachers getting the "better" students if they are able to keep their test scores up. Unfortunately, it is the low performing schools that are in such need of more funding and the great teachers that I was provided with.