When Pierrce Holmes entered ninth grade, his school put him in 9C, a lower-level algebra class.
Before that, Holmes had always gotten good grades in math, mostly As, and when he found out that his friends were in honors math, he felt like he belonged there too. He then approached his counselor and asked why he wasn't in honors math class. “Oh, do you want to try it?” Holmes remembers the advisor responding. He was moved to the most advanced class, which taught algebra II and geometry.
Holmes had been “tracked” or grouped in the lowest performing math class. “Honestly, he wasn't even thinking about tracking. I was just a child. I just go to whatever class they send me to,” Holmes says, adding, “If you're not paying attention, no one tells you.”
Reflecting on his most recent experience as a policy analyst for the RAND Corporation, a public policy research organization, Holmes doesn't think it makes much sense that he had to seek the opportunity to try harder mathematics. Only when it was too late to influence his own decision did it become clear to him that this was a moment in which he could unknowingly have been sent down an alternative path.
Which students can try intellectually stimulating courses like calculus may depend in part on where they attend high school and not just their aptitude for mathematics, according to a new study. Since these courses can influence placements in coveted university places, this can leave talent on the table and reinforce inequality of opportunity.
Previous studies have also shown that students receive different guidance from their counselors, with some students even turning to social media sites like YouTube to determine which math courses to take. A lag in America's math performance could have big consequences.
The complicated reality of tracking
Getting rid of tracking is not the answer, says Julia Kaufman, senior policy researcher at RAND. But there are questions about how to achieve this equitably, ensuring that students who can handle difficult math content don't see their talents wasted, she argues.
According to their research, the factors used to determine how to group students differ by state and school type.
Kaufman and Holmes released a report in February suggesting that large, low-poverty middle schools tend to use achievement-based tracking more for math placements than their high-poverty counterparts. Called “Opportunity structures in elementary and secondary schools that influence students' mathematics learning.,” the report investigated student tracking, teacher ratings, and support for struggling students in four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas. It was the first publication based on RAND's American Study of Mathematics Educators. This particular report focused on data from a subset of that study drawn from 2,505 teachers and 2,293 principals working with children in kindergarten through eighth grade.
One finding: The way these schools grouped students into math groups also differed depending on the income level of the families they serve. Schools with fewer students receiving free or reduced-price lunch were more likely to use parent or family requests when grouping students, rather than teacher recommendations or performance on assessments. It's not clear exactly why, Kaufman says. Perhaps low-income families are less assertive, or perhaps principals don't consider their requests as much, she speculates.
In general, schools use different types of data when placing kids on tracks, Kaufman says. For example, in New York, it was common for principals to report using teacher recommendations when determining where to place a student. In Florida, by contrast, it was more common to rely on grade-level tests or interim assessments than on teacher recommendations when grouping students.
Some of the differences in the report are mysterious. For example: According to the survey, Texas principals reported that there are more “significant barriers” preventing them from providing effective mathematics instruction from preschool through 12th grade. These principals were reporting greater pressure on teachers to cover material specific to be evaluated in Texas, as well as greater staffing shortages and inadequate time for teachers to prepare lessons in Texas compared to the country as a whole. Why this should be worse for Texas educators, as the data suggests, is something researchers say they have no clear explanation for.
Access to opportunities
In his previous work teaching adults trying to earn a GED, Kaufman spent a lot of time reflecting on how the education system “ripped off” those students. Factors beyond his control seemed to push them toward the GED path: where they were born, what opportunities they had, and what the schools they attended could offer them when they struggled, he adds.
Setting students up for success is not just about what a teacher does in a classroom, but what schools can do more broadly, he says. That's something he also sees in tracking mathematics.
For example, many principals say their school offers algebra, a critical point in the race toward calculus. But, Kaufman says, they also say that only some students can take algebra, which involves some tracking.
Ultimately, this can push students onto academic journeys they may not even know they are on.
Students often follow paths and don't realize they have a choice in the matter, Kaufman says. That can work. But sometimes, especially when children are tracked at lower and higher levels of achievement, students can find themselves stuck on lower-level paths, she adds. That can shape their self-perception and can also affect how teachers perceive a student's math ability, Kaufman says.
Missing some math can make college more difficult, he adds, and this can happen without anyone talking about it with the student or their parents.
