How the common core boosts quality and equality

The December/January 2012/2013 edition of Educational Leadership includes a commentary by William H. Schmidt and Nathan A. Burroughs entitled "How the common core boosts quality and equality." One of the items they comment upon is that the Common Core State Standards present a national curriculum that equals opportunity for students. They cite a survey by NAEP suggesting that nearly three quarters of 8th graders are assigned to math classes based on ability (p. 57, cited from NAEP, 2011)). This, they assert, is both inappropriate and unfair. I would argue that while "many scholars, policymakers, and activists" (p. 57) criticize tracking, there is a reason it continues to exist which is not based solely on educational inertia.

True, tracking has worked hard to earn its bad rap. Inflexible, racially biased tracks did and do constrain many students. When tracking is paired with appropriate differentiation and flexibility between tracks, however, it becomes an effective method for meeting the needs of mathematics students. A study by Chiu, Beru and Watley (2008) yielded positive effects of tracking on both high and low performers (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ816768&searchtype=keyword&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=EJ816768&_nfls=false&source=ae). Loveless' 2009 study sponsored by the Fordham Institute regarding Massachusetts schools showed that there were 6% more students in advanced classes in tracked programs and a 3% higher representation of low SES students in those classes as well as higher scores for the high achievers on the MCAT (http://www.sbsdk12.org/programs/gate/documents/200912_Detracking.pdf). Studies of Chicago's double dose algebra approach where students who are low performers are given a second algebra support class that involves discussion, hands-on practice and reinforcement of concepts, significantly increased the success rates of the students in math AND English, as well as the student's likelihood of completing high school and going on to post secondary education (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Double%20Dose-7%20Final%20082610.pdf and http://educationnext.org/a-double-dose-of-algebra/)

Further, much research supports the concept that gifted children are hurt by heterogeneous tracking. For a sampling:

•  http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10236.aspx 
• http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-grouping-homogeneous-heterogeneous-ben-johnson
• http://www.cmu.edu/cmites/abilitygrouping.html
• http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2006/03/when_ability_gr.php
•  http://www.aei.org/article/education/k-12/system-reform/closing-the-achievement-gap-but-at-gifted-students-expense/ 
• http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/
• http://www.rtsd.org/cms/lib/PA01000218/Centricity/Domain/799/detracking%20effect%20on%20low%20perf.pdf
• http://researchhighachievers.wicomico.wikispaces.net/file/view/Tracking+and+Ability+Grouping.pdf 
• http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct92/vol50/num02/Gifted-Students-Talk-About-Cooperative-Learning.aspx

High ability students become disinterested and disengaged in school, they have more social issues and they do not perform as well in upper level math classes. Teachers who are under great pressure to bring up the scores of the struggling students in order to keep their jobs often do not have the time and energy to attempt to meet the needs of the high achievers in their classrooms; after all, those students will get it when placed in a room with a rock- won't they? Tracking allows teachers to focus their attention and time in a meaningful way on all students.

"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in which people are made equal by donning handicapping devices. No one is allowed to be better at anything than others. This is not the model we wish for our education system. We want our best students to become our movers, shakers and inventors of the future. If we insist on providing an equal education to all, we are meeting Vonnegut's ideal. If we provide high achievers access everywhere to fast moving, advanced programs, and high quality programs to all, we are meeting the goal of helping students reach their individual potentials. Can a national curriculum provide some frame work for this? Yes. But just like you want students to move flexibly between achievement groups, I want them to move flexibly between "grades" within the curriculum. Let's encourage our high performers to go above grade level and test them there. Let's support our struggling students and allow the very lowest to learn and test below grade level until they can meaningfully be tested at grade level.