Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Wishful thinking isn’t enough: the demise of tracking at Illinois high schools

Wishful thinking isn’t enough: the demise of tracking at Illinois high schools

Last updated on: May 22, 2017 at 7:39 am by Jane the Actuary

Wishful thinking isn’t enough: the demise of tracking at Illinois high schools 2017-05-22T07:39:43-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Let me tell you about the course offerings at my son’s high school:

For math, there’s a sequence that starts with Honors Geometry for freshmen and proceeds to Honors Advanced Algebra, Honors Pre-Calc, and then Calculus. Within this there are two sub-tracks that lead to a version of Calculus that prepares kids for the AB (single-variable) AP exam, or an alternate version that prepares kids for the BC (multivariate) AP exam. Another sequence leads from 9th grade algebra to “advanced algebra” in 11th grade, and a 12th grade unspecified elective. A third leads to “intermediate algebra” in 11th grade, and a fourth starts with “math” in 9th grade, then algebra and finally geometry. (Strictly speaking, only three credits of math are required for graduation, so the lower-tracked students might stop there.)

For science, there’s a sequence in which each of the basic courses, biology, chemistry, and physics, are labelled “honors.” And then there are two sequences which are given no particular names, just different course numbers, but are clearly a middle and a lower track of the same subjects.

For English and social studies, the same: three tracks.

Now, my son has had classes in both the middle and upper track, and the upper track is clearly challenging, but the middle track isn’t exactly a cakewalk, either – or, at any rate, has that degree of challenge to it for him that demonstrates that it’s the right placement. And I’d always figured this was standard — that the middle track was “college prep” and the lower track for kids who simply weren’t college material, and for whom these courses were paired with the various vocational offerings available, whether auto repair or food services training or cosmetology. Perhaps I’m mistaken and the bottom track is really only for special ed kids but that would be nonsensical to me, since you need some sort of differentiation between the sort of coursework that’s needed to get a kid ready to start college, and coursework that’s appropriate for the non-college bound but still sufficient to obtain the high school diploma.

That being said, according to an article in Sunday’s Tribune, that differentiation is simply gone at most Illinois public high schools, and with harmful consequences. There exist only two tracks: honors and “general” which is intended to be “college prep.”

Here’s what seems to be the thought process:

Common core sets certain achievement standard for kids, in order to be able to succeed in college.
We want all our kids to go to college.
Therefore, they should all take college-prep courses.
But if we remove the lower track and place everyone on the same track, if we keep the difficulty level unchanged, the bottom portion of kids will fail out.
In order to prevent these kids from failing, we’ll demand less of kids in the college-prep track.

The problem is that the kids are indeed, to a disturbing degree, graduating and heading off to college, but are unprepared for college courses, and require remedial courses.

And the solution being touted in the Trib article? Why, rather than revive the split track so that college prep/nonhonors kids and noncollege-bound kids can each have a class that’s appropriate for their level of academic ability, the answer being proposed is to provide the former group with more honors class opportunities. Now, I suppose that, in the end, the end result could be the same, if the “honors” track is split into two, and there end up being three tracks after all, just with different names (like vanity sizing, I suppose): e.g., “college prep” for the noncollege-bound, “honors” for those kids who want to start college without remedial classes, and “advanced honors” with the level of rigor that regular honors classes used to have.

You think I’m making this up, don’t you?

Here’s what the Trib reports:

Schools are required to report course rigor to ISBE in one of four categories: Honors, enriched, general and remedial. Special education classes are a separate category. . . .

Overall, 75 to 80 percent of students who took only general-level classes in math, social studies or science weren’t prepared for key college classes in those subjects. About 50 percent of those students weren’t prepared in English, based on the ACT college entrance exam’s target scores for college readiness. . . .

Educators say general courses have become so widespread in part because high schools have eliminated low-level remedial classes, or shifted some students with lower skills into general classes. A very small percentage of the millions of courses — about 2 to 5 percent in each of the main subjects — were labeled remedial in the state data. . . . [Side comment: perhaps that’s what’s going on at my son’s school – perhaps the fact that the multiple levels of each subject had no label meant that, in state reporting, the school claims that these are all “general” classes leading to college enrollment.]

[After removing remedial-level courses,] multiple pressures can arise, for example, if a teacher is evaluated on student performance. Teachers would have to provide instruction to a more diverse group that could include many kids with lower skills.

“The only thing a teacher can do is to scale back on the level of rigor and the level of difficulty of the class; otherwise, 50 percent of the class will fail, and how will that look on her evaluation? That’s not good,” Baker said. . . .

The push to eliminate remedial courses in high school came in part from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, several educators said. The NCAA requires college-bound athletes to take classes in key subjects that prepare them for college. Courses that don’t count are “classes taught below grade level, at a slower pace or with less rigor or depth. These classes are often titled basic, essential, fundamental or foundational,” according to NCAA materials.

At the same time, a new era of higher academic standards has been sweeping the country in recent years.

Illinois adopted the Common Core standards in June 2010 for K-12 schools, emphasizing critical thinking, problem-solving and a greater depth of instruction to ensure all graduating students are prepared to attend college or enter the workforce. The standards focus on what students should know in mathematics and English/language arts, including literacy standards for social studies and science.

The new standards were scheduled to roll out across Illinois between 2010 and 2014, and were a fundamental shift, particularly for high schools used to stratifying students, placing them into different levels of classes based on their abilities. In that scenario, some students would finish high school prepared for college, but others might not.

And repeatedly, school officials cited in the article emphasize that their mindset is fundamentally that everyone should go to college, and, therefore, all students should be enrolled in the courses that track to college.

A 2012 report by the National School Boards Association’s Center for Public Education stated: “The academic rigor of a student’s high school coursework has a long-lasting impact on future careers and earnings.”

And “rigor should lead to the common outcome that all students are prepared for college, career and responsible citizenship.”

Note that the “college or career” formulation has been replaced by “college and career.”

Carol Baker is the former director of curriculum over science in Oak Lawn-based Community High School District 218 and became a grade school superintendent in west suburban Lyons in July.

She said District 218 began to pull kids from remedial classes a few years ago because students in those classes were not meeting academic standards in science. Baker recalled saying, “We have to get some of them out of there. It’s a death sentence. It’s like the no-college sentence.”

At one school district, even the remedial courses carry the name “college core”, and are described as being “designed to help students work on college prep material at a less rigorous pace.”

So this is a mess.

Educators, and the community, and families themselves, have to move away from the notion that everyone should go to college. Only upon recognizing that fact can both groups of students be served well — those who need to learn true “college prep” material and those who should be taught less rigorous course material, but taught it in such a way as to learn the material well, rather than only marginally grasping a few ideas before moving on to the next topic.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wendt-library/4080320621

Uncategorized

making college mandatory

remedial education

universities

Previous Post

May 18, 2017

Chicago celebrates a terrorist

Next Post

May 23, 2017 "[His] death cannot go by with no meaning at all."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book contains the "Song of Deborah"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ruth Exodus 1 Samuel Judges