What do supporters of the framework say?
Let's look into the opposing arguments.
"[Tracking] changes your mind-set and belief about yourself"
- Jo Boaler
Professor of Education at Stanford
Jo Boaler, a professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, asserts that “If you are told in sixth grade, ‘You’re in a lower math track,’ that changes your mind-set and your belief about yourself. Going forward, they think math is not in my future.” She hastily assumes that students will be discouraged from math if they’re at a lower level math class. However, students are mainly discouraged in math if they are struggling or if they’re bored, which is exactly what separated math classes fixes. Boaler’s argument is a slippery slope because she claims that students placed in a lower math class level will have reduced self-esteem and will reject math as a possibility for their future. However, students who do not get into a higher math class can still pursue STEM in the future. If the student enjoys math, whatever level they’re at, they should be encouraged to pursue it. Teachers must make it clear that math can be in anyone’s future regardless of what level they are at the time.
​
In order to do so, teachers need to learn how to adapt curriculum to students’ learning styles and ensure understanding rather than memorization. A bad experience with an unsupportive teacher can change a students’ mindset and in order to achieve the sort of equity that is desired, teachers must be trained to be supportive of every student and their abilities. Effective teaching strategies is the strongest tool we have to improve the overwhelmingly negative perception math has in American schools.
Supporters of the framework claim that tracking students creates a racial divide. Tracking is when students are placed on different curriculum tracks based on an IQ test. Todd McCardle, a professor of education at Eastern Kentucky University, claims that “tracking practices are a form of racial injustice and limit opportunities for students of color” because there is low representation of students of color in advanced tracks. This opposition quickly assumes that detracking will lead to a higher representation of students of color in AP and advanced math classes. A study by Stanford PhD students of the San Francisco Unified School District found that there was no change in the representation of Black or Hispanic students in AP math courses when tracking was delayed until high school. In fact, there was a 15% decrease in AP Calculus enrollment in general.
What we value is equity, not necessarily equality. Rather than getting rid of tracks all together, to make tracks more equitable, we should make different tracks available in all schools and test all students’ intellectual advancement and curiosity to determine placement. Though ending tracking has good intentions, it ultimately creates a roadblock for all students trying to advance in math to pursue STEM careers.
​
​
“Tracking practices are a form of racial injustice and limit opportunities for students of color”
- Todd McCardle
Professor of Education at Eastern Kentucky University
"A University of Pennsylvania meta-analysis that covered over four decades of research strongly encouraged detracking."
- Collin Goel
Journalism major
​
In this statement, Goel generalized the findings of the paper. While the paper did convincingly suggest that “heterogeneous grouping should be encouraged and promoted”, it had significant limitations. It analyzed 15 studies and 10 of them showed results that supported detracking. Furthermore, the studies observed that traditionally low-performing did better in detracked systems, but correlation does not mean causation. Results for this type of research are very easily misconstrued as determining the effectiveness of a teaching style is subject to students in the test population and the method by which performance is analyzed. The classroom is a very complex and dynamic place and other factors could have influenced the students' performance. The fact that the teachers in detracked programs are more aware of the inequity in education is more likely why their students perform marginally better. Having these kinds of teachers is more important than implementing a system which has not been proven to be more effective. If equity were more of a priority in tracked programs, perhaps the results would be just as or more positive.
​
Proponents of detracking argue that detracking high school math improves students comprehension and retention of foundational math topics. “Student-led” instruction, “active learning,” “active inquiry,” and “collaborative” instruction are all terms that are associated with detracking. These teaching styles are not exclusive to detracked systems. If they are indeed effective, they can be implemented in any classroom. In fact, separating math classes by level is more conducive to collaborative learning as students are likely to feel more comfortable around students of a similar level. Advocates for this style of learning argue that struggling through concepts can improve students' understanding. They admit that excessive struggling can be detrimental to learning as students can mislearn topics and get frustrated. Students in “lower level” math courses can still be challenged effectively with proper delegation of content by their teachers. As far as we know, no research has been done to explain from a neurological perspective why detracking is better for learning math.
This graph is showing that over 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade, math testing scores are decreasing for all students in the United States. According to the California Department of Education, California’s Smarter Balanced math test scores are still below the levels of before the pandemic and the state as a whole is below average when compared to other states in the U.S. Supporters of the new California Math Framework believe that it will help increase students’ overall math skills. However, putting everyone at the same level of math won’t help improve their skills if the students can’t advance at their own pace.
