Issue

No. In theory, teachers should be able to differentiate instruction for all levels of learners, including special ed. In reality, that is an absolutely unreasonable expectation. It requires an incredible amount of planning to be done right, and probably would spread even the best teachers too thin.Not long ago, I was advocating heterogenous grouping big time. I used to think I did a pretty good job of reaching various abilities in the classroom. In retrospect and after more experience, however, I now believe detracking does kids at all ability levels a disservice. This is mainly because a significant number of lower-ability students exhibit poor self-discipline, tend to act up, and are much less serious about their work. (I guess if I felt hopeless about keeping up with everyone else, I would turn to mischief or disruption, too, because I probably could find some success with that!)It is easier for teachers to bond with students and find ways to personalize instruction when they can focus on a solid line of teaching with a small (but varied) range of learning abilities. With more kids on the same wavelength, you're less likely to miss someone.

—Sandy Evans is dean of students at Norview High School in Norfolk, Va. She is also president of Teachers' Little Secrets, a publishing company in Virginia Beach, Va.

Yes. Schools can and must eliminate tracking for the benefit of students—and the teachers who are tracked along with them. Students are at risk as long as schools continue a practice that has failed to yield successful results for a majority of their constituents, and our profession is at risk as long as intelligent, innovative teachers are also tracked into basic classes where lower-level skills and drills are the order of the day.If tracking worked, then thousands of students grouped into remedial classes would be achieving at dramatic rates. This is not the case. Even students in advanced classes are not achieving at levels that deserve our most sincere praise because quantity of work, not quality, is often the rule. Heterogenous classes have also failed when they become places where high achievers spend most of their time helping slower students or doing the research while their slower classmates draw the pictures.For teachers, detracking is about professional development, high standards, collaborating with colleagues, taking academic risks, and planning every lesson with the highest of expectations. For students, detracking is learning that others are smart in different ways. It is about rigor, depth, and higher-order thinking for both the slowest and the most academically gifted students, and it is about classrooms in which every student is engaged, challenged, and learning.

—Edna Varner is principal of Chattanooga Middle School, Phoenix II, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Schools can and should eliminate some practices that people call "tracking." For instance, "tracking" sometimes refers to all-day assignment of elementary school children to separate high- or low-ability classes on the basis of their test scores. Children in the different tracks usually work from the same text materials, and research shows that the children learn neither more nor less than they would in mixed classes working with the same materials. It is hard, therefore, to find some curricular or research-based justification for this kind of iron tracking. Schools can eliminate it without harming American education.But people sometimes use the term "tracking" to cover all forms of curricular differentiation and all programs that provide separate instruction for selected groups of learners. For example, detrackers have used the term "tracking" to cover Advanced Placement classes in high school, homogenous grouping of children within classes for arithmetic or reading lessons, programs for the gifted or talented, and academic and vocational classes in high school. If American schools are to provide appropriate challenges for all students, they need the curricular diversity that such classes and programs offer. Research shows that such curricular differentiation helps children. American education would be harmed if, in the name of detracking, schools eliminated all curricular differentiation and all homogenous grouping of children for instruction.

—James Kulik is a research scientist at the University of Michigan's Center for Research on Learning and Teaching in Ann Arbor, Mich.

My response is a resounding yes! My high school has had remarkable success detracking itself, as shown by state and national test scores. We have changed the entire learning environment for all students. We have adopted a common core curriculum for all students, interdisciplinary teaming, a block schedule, research seminars for all juniors and seniors, performance exhibitions required for graduation, and an assessment system that focuses on narrative reporting as opposed to grades (summative assessment is done at the end of each semester only). All students must complete four years of math, beginning with algebra, and four years of science, including chemistry and physics.Detracking does not mean a watered-down curriculum. Teachers work on building their capacity to ensure success for all students. Support systems are needed for students and teachers so that all may meet the goals of the school. Instead of different work, some students need extra time to meet the same standards as their peers. Programs such as learning centers, after-school time, summer school, peer tutors, and volunteer mentors all help the school meet its goals.Detracked schools are focused on teaching and learning, are clear about their goals, and set high expectations. This is hard work! Ensuring success for all learners in a very diverse group, including children with special needs, is a daily challenge. But students deserve nothing less.

—Pam Fisher is principal of Noble High School in Berwick, Maine.