We received a question from a social studies department regarding leveling, or tracking. The school had taken steps to eliminate remedial courses, and in the first year of implementation, the department was questioning the loss of remedial social studies classes. Some members expressed concern that the more heterogeneous classes were stifling discussion because the students who had been in remedial classes in the past were not motivated to answer questions. The teachers also argued that teaching to the middle in mixed classes was doing a disservice to the high-ability students. It should be noted that the department does offer Advanced Placement and honors courses for presumably high-ability students.

This issue provides a teachable a moment--an illustration of how schools might address an issue. One way is for faculty members to share their impressions, observations, perceptions, and beliefs. Another is to examine what the evidence says. In this case, the research is clear. Putting the least capable and least motivated students together in a class with a curriculum that is less challenging and moves at a slower pass increases the achievement gap and is detrimental to students in the lowest level. Jeannie Oakes has been compiling this research for over 25 years, and John Hattie did a meta-analysis of it in his book Visible Learning. Furthermore, the research reports that remedial classes are typically taught by the least experienced teachers and that minority students are over-represented.

The department might also turn its attention to the research on expectations--assumptions teachers have about the future academic success of the students they teach. We have known for over 30 years that "high expectations" on the part of educators have a positive impact on student achievement, while low expectations have a negative impact. Given this research, the department might question the benefits of a program that conveys the unmistakable message to students, “We don’t think you have the ability to be successful in a regular class, so we have dumbed down the curriculum to meet your limited skills.”

The department might also examine the research of psychologist Carol Dweck, who has established the impact of a fixed mind-set versus a growth mind-set. The former operates from the premise that ability is fixed, that success or failure is determined by one’s innate ability. The growth mind-set operates from the premise that success is determined by effort, persistence, and tenacity. Dweck has concluded that the fixed mind-set discourages student learning while the growth mind-set leads to higher levels of learning and greater success in meeting the challenges of life. A remedial track conveys the fixed mind-set--“You will be successful here if you were born smart.” Dweck has concluded that schools must abandon the fixed mind-set and create structures and cultures that send the message, "Your achievement will be determined by your effort."

The argument that former remedial students lack the motivation to volunteer to answer questions in a more heterogeneous class raises issues about the questioning strategies being used. Once again, if the teachers examined the research on effective questioning, they would learn that relying primarily on volunteers is not good practice. Effective questions engage students in thinking, and to promote that engagement, the teacher must control who will answer by directing questions to students randomly. If every question is answered by the quickest or loudest students, other students can and will stop engaging. Nor is it effective to accept "I don’t know" as an answer. Good teachers will prompt, probe, and extend wait time. If the student is unable to respond, the teacher will say, "Think about it and I’ll come back to you in a minute." They have students react to each other’s answers. They make it clear that everyone will be engaged in the dialogue.

It is, in my opinion (note, not research based), that social studies teachers in particular should not resort to tracking with remedial courses. They are preparing students for citizenship, where all of us are assumed to be equal and the vote of the remedial student will count as much as the vote of the advanced student.

I suggest that the school engage in action research to assess the effectiveness of its program rather than relying on opinions. What was the failure rate in the remedial track? How many students in the remedial track met state standards? In the 1980s, the social studies department at Stevenson High School had four levels and defended the remedial track because it was better for those kids not to be challenged. A review of the data showed that students in the remedial program were three times more likely to fail. So the department went to two levels--regular and Advanced Placement--and the success rate of students who would have been assigned to remedial courses in the old system actually went up dramatically. Those students were surveyed regarding their perceptions about being in the regular program and they were uniformly positive. Students felt good about the fact that they were being successful in the regular program rather than being designated to a remedial program that they referred to with a derogatory term. Stevenson’s student achievement has increased every year since it eliminated leveling, so I question the argument that this is harmful to brighter students to have these students in their classroom, particularly if those students have access to an honors or AP course. as they do in this school.

Hattie contends that teachers have typically made decisions by swapping war stories rather than by building shared knowledge through the study of research or conducting their own action research. If this department looks at the evidence, it will not assign students to remedial tracks.

Adapted from Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek)

© Solution Tree Press 2010