It's not just a matter of ability, but also of interest and desire. I recall reading several years ago about a young woman graduating from high school. She was a member of the Honor Society and a top student, but she chose to go to a vo-tech school to get a certificate as a diesel mechanic. The counselor was moaning about her wasted potential, but the girl herself stated: I can study for two years, graduate debt-free and have multiple job offers at $80/hour, plus overtime. And I LIKE working on motors.
I actually think that the current system of pushing almost everyone to go to college is not so much to improve education, but rather an effort to ensure that our young people start life already deeply indebted, and thus more easily controlled. The indoctrination angle of higher education may also be a motive for pushing college.
That's exactly what I was coming here to post. Parents where I live do travel sports as young as 6 years old and can't wait to shuffle elementary school students out of sports for not being good enough but would lose their shit if the schools even acknowledged that their kids did not belong with the advanced students (possibly because of having four travel ball practices a week for 9 months a year and 2 travel ball practices a week for another two months). They post their kids pics with plastic rings for winning a four team tournament 24 weekends a year but get mad when the school gives rewards for test performance and has gifted programs you have to qualify for.
The answer is to reframe (ok, lie about) tracked classes in a negative way unrelated to assessment of merit and potential.
So, for example, you could call them "Double homework classes." Everybody hates homework, and they hate double homework twice as much. Technically, or officially, these are the exact "same"'class that nobody has to qualify for and which "everybody" can enroll in and take, if they want to. But in reality, moving through a course's curriculum twice as fast without flailing is just not possible for most kids, and it provides parents with a Socially Acceptable Excuse for their kid being equally capable and just taking the "normal but already unreasonable" level of homework, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate in all those indispensable extracurricular activities and family functions and responsibilities. "Even smart kids like mine shouldn't just be grinds and study day and night just to get through the same stuff twice as fast!"
The trick is that in the actual doubled-up classes, the kids are indeed expected to learn the information, skills, and concepts twice as fast, but they don't actually have to spend twice as much time doing homework every night, because there is a daily quiz which if passed gives the kid a guaranteed pass on the day's homework (I personally benefited from just such a gimmick policy in a STEM class in American public high school many years ago.)
It's sad and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that one likely has to compromise one's honor and integrity and hide the ball a bit by framing things this way, but it's likely the best that can be done within our unfortunate social constraints.
American higher education has dramatically increased access at devastating cost: 4-6+ years out of the work force and outside one's home community, with a significant likelihood of leaving with debt but no degree (wide variation by institution). Four-year degree programs are extremely over-enrolled, while two-year programs and apprenticeships are extremely under-enrolled.
What is taboo about tracking is to notice the elephant in the room: the achievement gap(s). Tracking may technically not be illegal, but it has been in a precarious position and under attack for this reason for decades (cf. https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/vocational-ed-and-the-elephant/). It has bad optics and until people figure out how to deal with bad optics the best one can expect is gimmicky subterfuges like Handle's "Double homework classes", or Asian majority schools full of (from white parents' point of view) stereotypical grind kids with no personality. And, of course, the sorting of parents by which school district they can afford a house in is a form of indirect tracking.
Bryan treats the optimal tracking decision as if it the only cost of tracking is Wasted Potential, and he treats the American voter as if she is either too ignorant to see it or too tradoff-averse to think about it. I think this is just wrong.
In the minds of many American voters, an important cost of tracking is anti-egalitariansim. Many Americans place a value on the education system treating our children as if they were of equal ability; tracking obvioulsy imposes a cost against this value, by treating children according to their actual (unequal) abilities.
Two pieces of evidence this is an important cost against which Americans are trading off the benefit of reducing Wasted resources:
1) Preferences across tracking levels correlate with preferences across other egalitarian social programs.
2) Many (most?) schools provide vocational programs for non-college-track students, and these programs are voluntary. Americans are happy to save resources by providing different educations to students of differently ability, so long as the student makes the choice, and is not told by the education system she is of a low ability.
The argument Bryan provides that tracking is currently underused fails because he doesn't consider preferences across egalitarian treatment. There is no obvious reason to think that Americans are igronant or tradeoff-averse: they might simply be happy to "waste" billions of dollars to avoid telling a child she is of low ability at an early age.
Bryan's tone is surprisingly top down here. Do "we" really need to make a choice here? More options, plus perhaps a cultural shift, is what is needed. Having said that, I agree with the general sentiment. My son goes to an upper middle class public school, but he's probably not college material, at least not useful college degree material. But he can't get his diploma without going up through pre-calc since the mindset is very much about doing college prep and getting as many kids as possible into prestigious schools. Part and parcel with this is a lack of more vocational and practical options.
I'd note though, that some of us are late bloomers. You can probably make a pretty good estimate by sophomore year in high school, but writing off people in junior high is harsh. I'm doing great in a STEM career but I didn't hit my stride until high school.
The late bloomer thing is real. I wish we weren't so dead set on grouping people by age group or dividing up classes for a whole year. If we did something like trimesters and had intercessions for people trying to advance to a better track I think it would help.
I have never met "most Americans." But I had a great conversation with one just today.
I was talking to the front desk clerk Tabitha. I mentioned that a crazy guy (wild and crazy imo) had gotten elected president of Argentina. He says he's going to burn down the central Bank of Argentina.
Tabitha: Why?
Me: Well it's just that they've been having 145% inflation.
Tabitha: I will send him matches!
Send matches to Argentina care of the presidential palace.
Entrenched and influential special-interest groups clearly have selfish mal-incentives for preferring and promoting over-inclusiveness. E.g., those in tenured college or university faculty slots drawing generous salaries from sinecures that entail prestigious, non-strenuous, and intellectually stimulating work and leave them with plenty of free time; non-tenured faculty with hopes of gaining tenure; grad and undergrad students hoping to enter into such faculty careers; college/university officers, administrators, and trustees; those deriving their income from the standardized testing industry or college-prep or test-prep training; and politicians hoping to maximize their popularity.
I’d think one could avoid the opposition to using more tracking by making the decision to follow the implications into one that the student or parent makes. That would amount to doing more testing, generating recommendations, providing meaningful choices to student that support those recommendations (ie different courses), providing the default that will apply if the student does nothing, and implementing whatever choices the student actually makes.
It's not just a matter of ability, but also of interest and desire. I recall reading several years ago about a young woman graduating from high school. She was a member of the Honor Society and a top student, but she chose to go to a vo-tech school to get a certificate as a diesel mechanic. The counselor was moaning about her wasted potential, but the girl herself stated: I can study for two years, graduate debt-free and have multiple job offers at $80/hour, plus overtime. And I LIKE working on motors.
I actually think that the current system of pushing almost everyone to go to college is not so much to improve education, but rather an effort to ensure that our young people start life already deeply indebted, and thus more easily controlled. The indoctrination angle of higher education may also be a motive for pushing college.
Everybody favors tracking in competitive sports.
That's exactly what I was coming here to post. Parents where I live do travel sports as young as 6 years old and can't wait to shuffle elementary school students out of sports for not being good enough but would lose their shit if the schools even acknowledged that their kids did not belong with the advanced students (possibly because of having four travel ball practices a week for 9 months a year and 2 travel ball practices a week for another two months). They post their kids pics with plastic rings for winning a four team tournament 24 weekends a year but get mad when the school gives rewards for test performance and has gifted programs you have to qualify for.
The answer is to reframe (ok, lie about) tracked classes in a negative way unrelated to assessment of merit and potential.
So, for example, you could call them "Double homework classes." Everybody hates homework, and they hate double homework twice as much. Technically, or officially, these are the exact "same"'class that nobody has to qualify for and which "everybody" can enroll in and take, if they want to. But in reality, moving through a course's curriculum twice as fast without flailing is just not possible for most kids, and it provides parents with a Socially Acceptable Excuse for their kid being equally capable and just taking the "normal but already unreasonable" level of homework, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate in all those indispensable extracurricular activities and family functions and responsibilities. "Even smart kids like mine shouldn't just be grinds and study day and night just to get through the same stuff twice as fast!"
The trick is that in the actual doubled-up classes, the kids are indeed expected to learn the information, skills, and concepts twice as fast, but they don't actually have to spend twice as much time doing homework every night, because there is a daily quiz which if passed gives the kid a guaranteed pass on the day's homework (I personally benefited from just such a gimmick policy in a STEM class in American public high school many years ago.)
It's sad and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that one likely has to compromise one's honor and integrity and hide the ball a bit by framing things this way, but it's likely the best that can be done within our unfortunate social constraints.
American higher education has dramatically increased access at devastating cost: 4-6+ years out of the work force and outside one's home community, with a significant likelihood of leaving with debt but no degree (wide variation by institution). Four-year degree programs are extremely over-enrolled, while two-year programs and apprenticeships are extremely under-enrolled.
What is taboo about tracking is to notice the elephant in the room: the achievement gap(s). Tracking may technically not be illegal, but it has been in a precarious position and under attack for this reason for decades (cf. https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/vocational-ed-and-the-elephant/). It has bad optics and until people figure out how to deal with bad optics the best one can expect is gimmicky subterfuges like Handle's "Double homework classes", or Asian majority schools full of (from white parents' point of view) stereotypical grind kids with no personality. And, of course, the sorting of parents by which school district they can afford a house in is a form of indirect tracking.
Bryan treats the optimal tracking decision as if it the only cost of tracking is Wasted Potential, and he treats the American voter as if she is either too ignorant to see it or too tradoff-averse to think about it. I think this is just wrong.
In the minds of many American voters, an important cost of tracking is anti-egalitariansim. Many Americans place a value on the education system treating our children as if they were of equal ability; tracking obvioulsy imposes a cost against this value, by treating children according to their actual (unequal) abilities.
Two pieces of evidence this is an important cost against which Americans are trading off the benefit of reducing Wasted resources:
1) Preferences across tracking levels correlate with preferences across other egalitarian social programs.
2) Many (most?) schools provide vocational programs for non-college-track students, and these programs are voluntary. Americans are happy to save resources by providing different educations to students of differently ability, so long as the student makes the choice, and is not told by the education system she is of a low ability.
The argument Bryan provides that tracking is currently underused fails because he doesn't consider preferences across egalitarian treatment. There is no obvious reason to think that Americans are igronant or tradeoff-averse: they might simply be happy to "waste" billions of dollars to avoid telling a child she is of low ability at an early age.
Bryan's tone is surprisingly top down here. Do "we" really need to make a choice here? More options, plus perhaps a cultural shift, is what is needed. Having said that, I agree with the general sentiment. My son goes to an upper middle class public school, but he's probably not college material, at least not useful college degree material. But he can't get his diploma without going up through pre-calc since the mindset is very much about doing college prep and getting as many kids as possible into prestigious schools. Part and parcel with this is a lack of more vocational and practical options.
I'd note though, that some of us are late bloomers. You can probably make a pretty good estimate by sophomore year in high school, but writing off people in junior high is harsh. I'm doing great in a STEM career but I didn't hit my stride until high school.
The late bloomer thing is real. I wish we weren't so dead set on grouping people by age group or dividing up classes for a whole year. If we did something like trimesters and had intercessions for people trying to advance to a better track I think it would help.
I have never met "most Americans." But I had a great conversation with one just today.
I was talking to the front desk clerk Tabitha. I mentioned that a crazy guy (wild and crazy imo) had gotten elected president of Argentina. He says he's going to burn down the central Bank of Argentina.
Tabitha: Why?
Me: Well it's just that they've been having 145% inflation.
Tabitha: I will send him matches!
Send matches to Argentina care of the presidential palace.
Entrenched and influential special-interest groups clearly have selfish mal-incentives for preferring and promoting over-inclusiveness. E.g., those in tenured college or university faculty slots drawing generous salaries from sinecures that entail prestigious, non-strenuous, and intellectually stimulating work and leave them with plenty of free time; non-tenured faculty with hopes of gaining tenure; grad and undergrad students hoping to enter into such faculty careers; college/university officers, administrators, and trustees; those deriving their income from the standardized testing industry or college-prep or test-prep training; and politicians hoping to maximize their popularity.
I’d think one could avoid the opposition to using more tracking by making the decision to follow the implications into one that the student or parent makes. That would amount to doing more testing, generating recommendations, providing meaningful choices to student that support those recommendations (ie different courses), providing the default that will apply if the student does nothing, and implementing whatever choices the student actually makes.