Acceleration Versus Remediation
In California, a trend of eliminating developmental writing instruction at the community college level is well under way. AB 705, signed into law by the governor in 2017, takes a sledgehammer to such instruction in community college math and English. Here is a useful summary. The short version is, data shows developmental education in writing and math is not making enough of a difference for students, and actually making things worse because it consigns them to “extra” education when they might be better off at the transfer level even if their skill sets are lacking.
A 2021 Education Week story provides a study (though limited in scope, and focused only on elementary school students) showing acceleration is more beneficial than remediation in most cases. Much like the rationale of AB 705, acceleration at the K-12 level means putting students into the next grade level even if they are not “at” that level, and teaching skills “as necessary” to students who need help to get to proficiency (for the record, another definition of “acceleration” exists, which means something more like “compacted,” basically crunching a 16-week course down to 12 or 10 or even 8 weeks with longer sessions).
One teacher in a 6th grade math class, featured in a 2021 article about equity published by the L.A. Times, claimed she had 25% of her class at the 4th grade level, 25% at the 5th grade level, 30% at the 6th grade level, and 20% “above” 6th grade level. The parents of the “above” category were complaining that their students weren’t getting pushed, weren’t learning anything new.
Where to center the class?
To start, a couple notes on tracking, and its relationship to the acceleration-versus-remediation debate:
A 2020 article from an organization called Public School Review titled “The Pros and Cons of Tracking in Schools” defines tracking as “a system in which students are divided into classes based on their overall achievement. Students are ranked as being average, normal, or below average and they are divided into classes with students of the same achievement level.” As you may be able to see right off the bat (and this language to my knowledge only represents that of the article, not any particular school that has these actual designations), a designation of “normal” creates problems. What student, or parent, is going to be okay with a formal designation of “not normal”? “Below normal”?
In a book titled Detracking for Excellence and Equity, Carol Corbett Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education, and educator Delia T. Garrity write “In some schools, tracking begins with kindergarten screening. IQ and early achievement tests designed to measure so-called ‘ability’ determine track placement in the elementary years, thus setting in place an educational trajectory for 12 years of schooling. In other schools, tracking is a meritocracy that relies on teacher recommendations, grades, and student motivation to determine placement. In still others, students and their parents are allowed to choose a track, with certain conditions attached to the placement.”
But does it have merit on some level? Some of the pros, according to the Public School Review article, are “In low and normal achievement level students, this can help to ensure that the students learn the material at their own pace without falling behind. In terms of scholastic achievement for these individuals, tracking has not been found to make a significant difference. For above-average achievers, however, tracking has been shown to produce substantial gains – students who learn more quickly are allowed to do so and they are challenged according to their ability level.” The cons are that “by dividing students into a group by their academic ability, the educational system may cause those students to self-label themselves as inferior to upper track students” and that “Many studies have shown that self-esteem is correlated with academic achievement so, in theory, tracking should be a system that promotes academic success.”
Different studies say different things, making this issue a difficult one. An article published in The Atlantic in 2016 titled “The Upside of Academic Tracking” references several studies that show the benefits, particularly in establishing “advanced” classes, one of which concluded “the United States won’t produce as many students, including blacks and Hispanics, who can master higher mathematics if schools don’t begin preparing them separately, starting in eighth grade” and that “states with more tracking had more passing scores (on AP exams).” However, the article also notes that “higher income and white or Asian kids are more likely to get tracked into the elite classrooms. Students who aren’t chosen can become demoralized, or the curriculum in the average class can get too watered down. Great teachers and extra resources get steered to these honors programs, leaving the kids who need the most help with less.”
As the title of the book suggests, the authors argue tracking is something that needs to go. One passage reads “Do students differ in talents and achievement? They do. But when those observed differences are reinforced by track placement and grouping practices, and children then internalize those differences, learning opportunities become limited for all but the elite student. The talents of late bloomers go undiscovered, and the rewards of hard work and diligent study are never realized.” One problem is that the lower-track classes often end up doing little to help students, in addition to serving as a negative referendum on students’ abilities and identities as learners. They mention a Denver High school where English teachers who took on a detracking project “were appalled by the nonacademic culture of their low-track classes.” The authors conclude that for many reasons, “tracking does the most harm to students who are consigned to the lowest track.”
In contrast, they write, evidence shows that placing low-achieving students in courses with high-achieving students has benefits. The authors cite one study that showed “if lower-achieving students were mistakenly placed in the high-track mathematics class, their chances of successfully completing a college prep course of math study dramatically increased” and mention a middle school special education teacher who believes “providing differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous class enhances each student’s academic, social, and emotional learning experience.” They conclude that “Struggling students who are part of heterogeneous groups and classrooms observe and learn the techniques of less-inhibited learners.” One concern from parents of high-achieving students is that these classrooms may slow the best students down. In response to this, the authors suggest that a course be taught to the high-achieving students, with acceleration, or finding where the other students are and giving them the skills they are lacking, works in a heterogeneous classroom.
Acceleration is probably an argument for smaller class sizes, because if you have 40-50 students, that individualized skill-building is difficult to achieve. There’s only so much of a teacher to go around. Every teacher will encounter a broad array of proficiencies among their students, so this dilemma is one of the most fundamental things about teaching: where to teach to. Me? I teach to the “A.” I tell students I am here to tell them what it means to get an A in the class. Most likely, that would make me like a 6th grade math teacher who teaches to the 6th grade level.
How about you?
Some texts on the topic:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/AL-501-Acc_v_Remediation_724453_7.pdf
https://tntp.org/publications/view/teacher-training-and-classroom-practice/accelerate-dont-remediate
And for a super deep-dive, courtesy of Stanford:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/documents/pdfs/4-01_remediation.pdf