Tracking by another name

When I originally read the articles included in Kappan’s special issue on identifying and developing talented youth, I believed there to be a glaring omission by the authors: They did not include any real mention of the choice to integrate “gifted” students into heterogeneous classrooms (e.g., detracking). In other words, the authors positioned themselves on one side of the debate regarding gifted education, namely maintaining separate GT programs (e.g., tracking) while attempting to identify and serve more racially diverse students. What was missing in the articles was the other side of the debate. Not one of the authors wrote about stopping the practice of sorting students into “gifted” and “non-gifted” programs in the first place. Therefore, I suggested that educators reimagine the traditional structure of separate and unequal GT categories, services, and resources and consider expanding access to gifted pedagogy for all students.

Detracking GT is considered “a remedy for the negative effects of tracking” (Rubin, 2006, p. 4).  As Alvarez & Mehan (2006) wrote, “Whereas tracking segregates students of varying background into separate courses of study and holds instruction time constant, detracking has the potential to hold high standards constant and varies the amount of instruction time, and social and academic supports” (p. 83). This is not merely ideology; heterogeneous grouping is both a learning theory and an organizational practice that seeks to provide rigorous instruction and high expectations to all students.

Unfortunately, the main arguments I made in my commentary have been deeply misconstrued and recast by Plucker & Callahan. First of all, I never suggested that districts or schools eliminate advanced learning opportunities, which they claim multiple times in their response. Actually, the opposite is true. As I explained in my piece, all students — not just those labeled GT (who are also disproportionately white) — would benefit from having access to advanced learning opportunities: “Now is the time to unbuild this structure by phasing out traditional GT programming and turning our attention to schoolwide programs (such as Complex Instruction and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model) that offer all students access to excellent instruction in diverse classrooms.” I cited ample evidence regarding how GT programs were intentionally built to benefit white students, and about how districts/schools could unbuild these unfair and discriminatory structures by phasing separate programs out.

I wrote about how districts and schools should have the choice of phasing out traditional (e.g. separate, self-contained) GT programs and replacing them with other more inclusive educational models. The choice to group students heterogeneously is a legitimate option (and not merely a “fashionable” idea or an effort “wax philosophic,” as Plucker & Callahan disparagingly claim), and it is one that districts and schools across the country, including some schools and community school districts in New York City and elsewhere, are pursuing. For instance, Washington D.C., Baltimore, the state of Virginia, and a range of individual schools across the country, are phasing out traditional pull-out gifted programs and replacing them with schoolwide enrichment or push-in models (see Richards, 2020; Zimmerman, 2019). My commentary offered a realistic counterproposal to the historical problem of inequity in GT admissions and programming.

Another issue that was misunderstood by Plucker & Callahan was the fact that I am deeply skeptical that the authors’ global solutions for overhauling GT education would work in every context. I showed that many of the global solutions (set-asides for priority groups, prepping and testing more students, increasing the number of G&T programs) put forth by the authors do not always have the desired effect because of politics and the ability of advantaged parents to game the system.  Indeed, when applied to the NYC context, policymakers have already tried many of these solutions and failed to create more diverse and equitable GT classrooms, largely because the admissions criteria used to sort and select students for GT serve to privilege already advantaged families.

While NYC is an outlier in size and diversity, there are many other urban and suburban school districts that rely on test scores as the sole criterion for placement in GT and other advanced coursework. As Plucker & Callahan know, there are also many other school systems across the country that sort and select students into separate and unequal GT schools or classrooms, with the same segregated outcome between GT and regular education that is found in NYC (see this ProPublica report mapping the inequalities by state and district). I hear regularly from researchers in other states and school districts outside of the city who say they are watching what will happen with NYC’s GT policies and practices.  Right or wrong, leaders and policymakers look to NYC as a model. At the time of this writing, the authors of this special issue will be happy to hear that NYC’s GT testing will end after this year. The DOE plans to engage in community discussions regarding future plans that offers and “integrates diverse learning opportunities to all students regardless of class or label” (Jorgensen, 2021).

Plucker & Callahan also wrote that I implied that “gifted programs cause achievement gaps,” and that I “condemn advanced education programs for not fixing pre-existing gaps.” I never said nor implied either of these statements. Instead, I provided multiple references from empirical research studies that back up the claims that I made about the academic and social-emotional harms of racialized tracking, and the benefits of mixed-ability classrooms. It is true that research has shown that heterogeneous classes can dramatically close achievement and opportunity gaps by race and class, help propel more students into college, and provide opportunities for students to interact with students that hold diverse perspectives (Alvarez & Mehan, 2006; Burris, 2014; Oakes, 2005). It is also true that low SES students enter kindergarten with gaps in achievement, and these gaps widen over time because of school quality, including access to diverse schools and classrooms with more resources and better-prepared teachers (Johnson, 2019; Quinn, 2015; Reardon & Portilla, 2014).

There is no denying that Black and Latinx students are overrepresented in low academic tracks and underrepresented in GT programs. This age-old problem has prompted many Black parents to advocate for detracking the curriculum (Tractenberg et al., 2020; Lewis-McCoy, 2014). Indeed, Black parents have brought lawsuits against school districts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other states because of the disproportionate number of Black students placed in low track classes and special education, and this has led to the end of academic tracking in some districts and the elimination of the lowest track in others (Coughlan, 2020; Superville, 2020). With the goal of lifting up all students, instead of a select few, parents and educators have pushed for detracking reform because they feel it is the only way to reduce racial enrollment disparities in GT and other advanced classes. (If Plucker & Callahan require more research evidence or practical applications of detracking and heterogenous grouping, I would point them to a 2006 special issue on the topic in the journal Theory Into Practice.)

Detracking is not “an ideological fantasy,” as Plucker & Callahan described. In fact, I would say it is a fantasy to 1) believe that heterogeneous grouping is not currently happening in classrooms and schools (many of my amazing Ed.D. students at Molloy College who are teachers in detracked classes or administrators who have implemented detracked curriculum would beg to differ), or 2) believe that teachers do not have to differentiate in advanced classes or programs because students are all at similar ability levels.

The final point I would like to make comes directly from Plucker & Callahan’s response. I wholeheartedly agree with them when they say, “Students come from diverse backgrounds, speak different languages, have different strengths and personal challenges, and have had very different preschool and family experiences.” What’s missing in their response, however, is the acknowledgement that those diversities in the classroom are just what make them such powerful learning spaces when students are educated together instead of separately. I even wrote, “In this type of [heterogeneous] classroom, academic diversity is viewed as an asset, not a limitation, and is aligned with the research that has shown diversity makes us smarter (Phillips, 2014).” All students develop critical thinking skills and intergroup understandings by interacting with diverse peers of all abilities (Johnson, 2019).

As districts confront inequities brought to light from the current pandemic, this is the perfect time for educational leaders to consider reforms that would result in greater integration and racial equity — making sure all schools have the resources to provide students with access to advanced learning opportunities, ending the use of discriminatory test-based GT admissions, and promoting policies and practices that prevent schools and classrooms from being separate and unequal. Instead of only considering global solutions that tend to have unintended consequences, we also need local solutions with buy-in and support from key stakeholders to solve the GT inequity problem (see Dixson et al.’s article), with heterogeneous, mixed-ability classrooms as a viable option for districts and schools to consider.

 

References

Alvarez, D. & Mehan, H. (2006). Whole-school detracking: A strategy for equity and excellence. Theory Into Practice, 54 (1), 82-89.

Burris, C. (2014). On the same track: How schools can join the twenty-first century struggle against resegregation. New York, NY: Beacon Press.

Coughlan, R. (2020). South-Orange Maplewood: School (in)equity report. South Orange-Maplewood Black Parents Workshop.

Dixson, D.D., Peters, S.J., Makel, M.C., Jolly, J.L., Matthews, M.S., Miller, E.M., . . . & Wilson, H.E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 22-25.

Johnson, R.C. (2019). Children of the dream: Why school integration works. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Jorgensen, J. (2021, January 12). DOE will end gifted and talented test after this year. Spectrum News.

Lewis-McCoy, R. (2014). Inequality in the promised land: Race, resources, and suburban schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Phillips, K.W. (2014, October 1). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American.

Quinn, D.M. (2015). Kindergarten Black-White test score gaps: Re-examining the roles of socioeconomic status and school quality with new data. Sociology of Education, 88 (2), 120–139.

Reardon, S.F. & Portilla, X. (2014). Recent trends in socioeconomic and racial school readiness gaps at kindergarten entry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, February 2014, Washington, D.C.

Richards, E. (2020, January 13). New York is in uproar over push to ax gifted programs. This school is doing it anyway. USA Today.

Rubin, B.C. (2006). Tracking and detracking: Debates, evidence, and best practices for a heterogeneous world. Theory Into Practice, 45 (1), 4-14.

Superville, D.R. (March 3, 2020). Black parents force district to end academic tracking. Education Week.

Tractenberg, P., Roda, A., Coughlan, R., & Dougherty, D. (2020). Making school integration work: Lessons from Morris. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Zimmerman, A. (August 27, 2019). If New York City eliminates gifted programs, here’s what could come next. ChalkbeatNY.