Academic tracking means that students are placed into certain classes based on their performance. Let’s say Jasmine shows an aptitude for mathematics in sixth grade. She is then put on a “track” to take advanced math courses, starting in seventh grade and continuing all the way through high school. But Oscar, who is in Jasmine’s class, has not performed as well in math. He takes a different track of less advanced math courses, which may be easier or slower-paced. In her senior year, when Jasmine knows more math than Oscar, is this because of aptitude or opportunities?

The arguments for and against tracking policies have many components. Some people think tracking is a good idea. Students can learn with other students who have similar aptitudes. Higher-track students can learn new material more quickly and move on to more difficult material. Lower-track students can take more time to learn, without the pressure to move on quickly. This may keep some students from getting frustrated and giving up, when they really just learn at a different pace. Those in favor of tracking also add that many advanced classes aren’t a requirement for graduation. They say these classes just allow students who are interested to maximize their progress before leaving high school. Students with less interest in those subjects can take a different track, focusing on doing well in the classes required for graduation.

However, some research suggests that tracking does not help students. Researcher and professor, Jo Boaler, found that students in mixed-aptitude math classes outperformed students who were tracked. Other studies show that teachers who have lower-track classes also have lower expectations for those students. Lower expectations for student success have been shown to negatively affect student learning. Critics of tracking may worry that schools do not involve themselves enough with the progress of lower-tracked students because they are focused on the higher-tracked students. They say that students in low-track classes will not be challenged enough and will have fewer educational opportunities.

People who oppose academic tracking also point out that the tracks are decided by testing. Tests can misrepresent students’ skills and potential. Maybe the students who score poorly on the test just need tutoring, had a poor teacher the year before, or have test anxiety. They say that a test shouldn’t affect the courses a student is able to take throughout school. What do you think about this? Is academic tracking fair? Do kids like Oscar miss out on educational opportunities because they are put into a different track? Or does tracking allow Oscar to learn at a pace that better fits his aptitude?