Talk:Tracking (education)

message: Weak agree with merging, but if I understand correctly, tracking is considered a form of ability grouping, so that distinction should be maintained.  75.72.217.253 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Disagree, keep the two separate.  Tracking is a large system where as ability grouping is found on a much smaller scale.  Grouping occurs in the classroom where students are grouped together by ability for a specific subject.  Tracking, which can use ability grouping, is a broad program that separates students for all academic subjects.  They are similar but not the same
Yumjello 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking and Grouping are not the same 

message: Another major problem is that low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by middle-class, White students.
Although this line is adequately cited and I do not doubt its veracity, the "...white students" is only true for nations that have a white majority, like the US or the UK. Hence, at least this particular qualifier has a limited worldview. However, since I'm notn in the field of education, I wonder if any of the two changes I proposed below can fit with the same citation:
#[...]low-track classes tend to be primarily composed students of lower socioeconomic status, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students of higher socioeconomic status.
#In the United States, another major problem...
--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One particular line's Worldwiew problem 

message: This link is a comparison of tracking that has details about Japan, Germany, and the United States.  It includes information about cultural/social differences, teacher perceptions, and more.  I think that it might make an excellent source for refining and internationalizing this article.  It would be nice to have a couple more sources like this; I'd like to be able to include India and China, for example.  If you are aware of any information on these countries' policies, please post!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-country source

message: The source that purportedly supports "setting" and "banding" as synonyms for tracking does not mention either term.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting is certainly a term used in British schools where students are placed in "sets" according to their ability. Not sure if it's a term used widely outside of the UK. 88.104.14.94 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting 

message: Is Oakes really WP:RS. No bio on her (which is not a limiting factor in itself, of course). Phrase reads:
"Jeannie Oakes has theorized that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities."
-Okay. But how did they wind up in "low tracks?" Someone examined their skin color/ethnic background and "assigned" them? I think these are kids who generally do not do that well in school. So this remark, as paraphrased doesn't really stand the "smell" test IMO. Maybe it can be reworded. 
"Rather, she argues that the ethnocentric claims of social Darwinists and the Anglo-Saxon-driven Americanization movement at the turn of the century combined to produce a strong push for "industrial" schooling, ultimately relegating the poorer minority students to vocational programs and a differentiated curriculum which she considers a lingering pattern in modern schools.[26]"
- Someone, meaning well, changed WASP to "Anglo Saxon." Alas, this makes no sense in context. We are not discussing anything that can be linked to the invaders of Britain in the 6th century, or whatever
- Maybe she's saying too much here. What is wrong with "vocational training?" Should people not be taught auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, etc.? And how do these people fare in the real world. Quite well, I believe!
- If she is saying that they are not really being well trained for anything, then the material should reflect that and be reworded.  
-(I do agree about better teachers being assigned higher phased students). 
Please check the material to see whether it is worded correctly. Then let's discuss whether her material should be kept. (Trying to figure out from the two-year old discussion above, whether this was sort of covered or not. Can't decide). Student7 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that her book was published 26 years ago. That isn't, by itself, a good argument to rm the material. But there's been a lot of water over the dam since then: "No Child Left Behind," the abandonment of NCLB, Common Core standards, etc. Observations could be precise, but no longer applicable. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeannie Oakes comment

message: It is proposed that Set (ability group) be merged into this article as the Set article is an orphan and its content is best explained within the context of Tracking (education). Feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from: Set (ability group)