REMOVING INSTRUCTIONAL BARRIERS:ONE TRACK AT A TIME

KiMBERLY L A P R A D E , P H D

Grand Canyon University

The purpose of this article is to advocate for detracking as ameans for narrowing the achievement gap for marginalized stu-dents. The review looks at the history of tracking and the contextof detracking initiatives that have produced positive results. Thegrowing research in this area builds confidence for futuredetrackitig initiatives as a means to remove instructional barriersand adds weight to the case against tracking.

The Background of IVackingFirst, this country had the one room

school house. Before the industrial revo-lution, children of different ages andabilities received their education from oneteacher in one room. Differentiatedinstruction was the model for educationeven before there was a sophisticated namefor such a delivery system. Then, inresponse to the infiux of immigrants to theU.S., Americans needed to find an avenueto teach a more diverse population. Withthe advent of the recently developed IQtest, educators had a method to test incom-ing students and place them in differentclasses according to ability (Ansalone,2003). Tracking appeared to be the answerfor Americans to socialize newcomers andprovide a path for students to progress aca-demically. The most accepted definitionof tracking comes from Oakes (1985) andstates that students are sorted into groupsaccording to perceived ability. In generalterms, tracking has the following charac-teristics:

First students are identified in arather public way as to theirintellectual capabilities and accom-plishments and separated into ahierarchical system of groups for

instmction. Second, these groups arelabeled quite openly and character-ized in the minds of teachers andothers as being of a certain type-highability, low achieving, slow, aver-age, and so on. Clearly, thesesgroups are not equally valued in theschool.... third individual studentsin these groups come to be definedby others - both adults and theirpeers - in terms of these grouptypes... .Fourth, on the basis of thesesorting decisions, the groupings ofstudents that result, and the way edu-cators see the students in thesegroups, teenagers are treated by andexperience school very differently,(p. 3)Historically, tracking in the education-

al world of the United States aligned tothe 1896 ideas of "separate but equal" asdemonstrated by the case of Plessy versusFerguson which mied that if schools wereequal they still could be segregated by race.Desegregation later came about as a resultof Brown versus the Board of Education;yet America's educational foundation stilltracked students by grade level; and with-in those grades, tracked by ability. Theconveyor belt of education became the

740

Removing Instructional Barriers... /741

standard during the industrialized revolu-tion. Before the Civil Right's Movementof the 6O's, many school counselors divid-ed students into either a vocational trackor a college track. Afterward, such largescale tracks began to dissolve in responseto the call for equity. Yet, tracking persists.Today, tracks occur more at the class levelin courses titled such as honors or reme-dial (Hallinan, 1994). In late 20th centuryand early 21st century practice, trackingcan be found in "60 percent of all prima-ry and 80 percent of all secondary schoolsin the United States" (pg. 4).

In general, tracking typically involvesvarious arrangements of grouping studentsaccording to ability. Tracking stirs heateddebates among educators. Those in favorof tracking purport that this systemenhances achievement because of threefactors. First it provides a comfortable envi-ronment for the student to progress."According to this perspective, studentaffective development is favorably influ-enced when a student's schoolwork is notinvidiously compared to the work of moreable peers"(pg. 4). Second, tracking canbe an organizational technique that helpsteachers. "Tracking is viewed as a man-agerial technique that prevents less ablestudents from holding back those withgreater academic potential" (pg. 5). Third,tracking provides educational organiza-tions an efficient means of allocating theirresources. "Proponents of this efficiencyperspective believe that schooling in Amer-ica is entrusted with the responsibility ofsorting students in specific categories inthe labor market"(pg. 5).

Those that disfavor tracking point to

studies that show the deleterious impactthis sorting system has on "students' oppor-tunity to learn (OTL)"(pg. 5). How muchof the curriculum is accessible by studentsin different tracks - especially lowertracks? Ansolone (2003) mentions theargument that the expectations of teachersmake a difference in their delivery of con-tent and therefore "lower tracks maycontain less of the intended curriculum"(pg.7). Tracking, by its nature, suggests adifferentiated curriculum. Much of the lit-erature highlights this differentiation,especially for the higher tracks. Kozol(1991) in his work. Savage Inequalities,found that classes in higher tracks weretaught with more variety and the teachersin those classes had more education andexperience. Walk through schools and peekin classrooms suggest those deterrents oftracking in education; tracking categorizesstudents according to their socioeconom-ic economic status and those most affectedare marginalized students (Oakes & Wells,1998)<.

Moreover, tracking esteems ability overhard work. Most students are placedaccording to a test they took in school. Oursociety awards the good test takers, butplaces less value on individual effort andprogress. When students face academicchallenges in school, the response is oftenis to move the student to a less challeng-ing class (DiMartino & Miles, 2005). Intheir article "Reaching Real Equity inSchools," Dimartino and Miles report thefollowing alarming statistics:

Over 700 studies have been done inthe past 50 years on tracking andability grouping, and the majority of

742 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

the research says not to do it. Evenso, some estimates say up to 85% oftoday's schools still group studentsfor instruction this way"(p.lO).Since tracking has such a negative con-

notation in education, mostly reinforcedby the work of Slavin (1995) and Oakes &Wells (1997), the term "tracking" has givenway to the more readily accepted term"ability grouping" (Tesio, 2003). No mat-ter the moniker, the practice still exists. Asmentioned earlier, the definition of track-ing is the practice of "sorting and groupingstudents by perceived ability" (Rubin,2003). In all but a few cases, research hasconsistently demonstrated that the resultsof tracking have been deleterious toachievement (Slavin, 1995, Dimarino &Miles, 2005). Unfortunately however, thechallenge to meet the needs of diverse pop-ulations fuels the system of tracking.According to Burris and Welner (2005),the resistance to un-track the tracking isas much a problem within fundamentalbeliefs as it is organizational systems orpolitics.

Of late, ability grouping again hasgained some favor with regard to theresearch on differentiated instruction "Thepresent and future of ability grouping liesin the fiexible use of grouping, either in orbetween classrooms" (Tieso, 2003). Thecaveat to the acceptability of ability group-ing as an effective tool to increaseachievement rather than that of trackingas a tool is that fiexible means temporary.Tracking has the connotative meaning ofpermanent grouping. In the article "Diver-sity vs. White Privilege," author ChristineSleeter (2001) states that "The tracking

system is built on presumptions about kidsfrom low-income backgrounds and kidsof color, that their parents don't care, thatthey have language deficits, that nobody isaround to push them with their homework,that they lack a lot of those things" (p. 4)."The system that sets up the hierarchy ofintelligence and excellence is racist"(Landsman, 2004, p.3).

Educators must not make presumptions;nor can they make excuses. In successfulschools where the gap is closing, the atti-tude of the community is that every childcan and will leam. They do not blame theenvironment (Johnston & Viadero, 2000).

Detracking by DefinitionDetracking is the process of disman-

tling institutional and organizationalstructures or instructional barriers that sortstudents according to ability. The defini-tion is broad in order to address the inherentcomplexity. Detracking can occur on mul-tiple levels. For example a study couldfocus on "detracking the classroom" andthis would be where the instructionalmethodology for mixed ability groupingis the focus of investigation. At the otherspectrum, a study could focus on "detrack-ing the program" and this would be, forexample, where the enrollment criteria forAdvanced Placement courses is the focusof investigation. Therefore, before any dis-cussion of detracking occurs it is necessaryto anchor participants' perspectives on acommon definition.

Typically, detracking reform will fallinto two types of studies; Slavin (1995)identifies these as 1) High-track/low-trackstudies that mostly find students benefit

Removing Instructional Barriers... /743

from high ability groups and students losewhen they are in the low ability tracks; and2) Track/no track research that suggeststhere in no benefit or loss to students'achievement by ability grouping whetherthey are below or above average. Slavin(1995) finds the studies of high-track/low-track problematic. He suggests that it islike "comparing apples to oranges" (p.221).On the other hand, he finds the "track/notrack studies are far more meaningful"(p.221).

In practical terms, "no one could arguethat ability grouping is beneficial to stu-dents in general" (p.222). However, it isprobably more beneficial to teachers dueto its seeming efficiency. The generallyrecommended strategy for detracking is toraise the bar and provide support for stu-dents to meet those demands. This placesthe onus on educators to discover the meth-ods that will provide the support."Recommendations for untracking strate-gies uniformly reject the idea of simplyteaching to the middle in heterogeneousgroups" (p.222).

Examples of DetrackingCarol Burris is a high school principal

and her efforts to eliminate tracking at herschool were worthwhile. South Side HighSchool (SSHS) had attempted other typesof reform before they chose to makedetracking a priority. "Low tracks simplydon't work," said Burris and according tothe article, "de-tracking worked well"(Welner, 2004). With the support of theschool board and the administration, SSHSabandoned ability grouping in core sub-ject areas such as English, social studies

and math. Their efforts were rewarded; theachievement results for South Side HighSchool on the state Regents test increasedsignificantly. Furthermore, the graduationrate increased. But most significantly,"Gains were also dramatic in percentagesof African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic-status students taking andpassing advanced math courses" (p. 16).Rather than "dumbing down the curricu-lum" SSHS maintained high expectationsfor all students; they set the acceleratedcurriculum as their standard and put sup-port strategies in place to ease the transitionfor many students to face the new acade-mic challenges.

Another example of detracking in actionis in Guilford County in North Carolina,where they "systematically increasedopportunities for students of color to par-ticipate in rigorous courses" (Grier andPeterson, April, 2005, p. 4). In addition tolooking at the system, Guilford also lookedat the social-cultural aspect of tracking byinstituting the "Cool to Be Smart" pro-gram. In addition to changes within thesystem (i.e. enrollment criteria), educatorsadded recruitment efforts and awarenesscampaigns to narrow the achievement gap.A special benefit to this two-prongapproach, in addition to the increase ofunderrepresented students in AP and IBclasses, was the "increased staff member-s' expectations" for those students whotend to be underachievers (p.3).

Since structures are often resistant tochange, Manuel High School in Coloradomade a gradual change to more heteroge-neous grouping. They changed theschedule to a block schedule and then they

744 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

created smaller inclusive classrooms forninth and tenth grade students (Dimartino& Miles, 2005). Likewise, Noble HighSchool in Maine "created seven teams forninth- and tenth-grade students. Teams of80-90 heterogeneously grouped studentscomplete a common curriculum to gradu-ate" (pg. 11).

Furthermore, Central High School wasanother example where an English depart-ment made a gradual change from threetracks to two (LaPrade, 2008). Accordingto this study, detracking removes barriers:

That does not mean it is easy or with-out its frustrations and obstacles.However, the data suggests thatmore students wiU take the more rig-orous courses; and more importantlyin this case, more marginalized stu-dents will take the more rigorous APcourses if we remove the system'sbarriers like tracks. With initiatives,such as this detracking case study,the achievement gap at the top ofthe academic pyramid has a betterchance of narrowing. While thechanges in grades and AP test scoreswere not statistically significant, thatin and of itself was remarkable inlight of the leap detracking asksmany students to make. Educatorshave a duty to remove those struc-tural barriers no matter howinconvenient it is do so. Tracks areeasy; but that does not make themthe equitable or the ethical thing todo. With barriers such as tracks col-lapsed, other efforts like recruitmentor awareness campaigns would havea better chance of success, (p.104).

Implications for ImplementationAs demonstrated by the above exam-

ples, recruitment efforts or awarenesscampaigns are not enough to narrow thepersistent gap in achievement for margin-alized students. But with a systematicchange, in addition to the recruitmentefforts and awareness campaigns, the gapbegan to narrow. Guilford saw results!

Nieto (1999) proposes "detracking byitself will do little or no good because soci-etal attitudes toward certain groups ofpeople have a profound effect on howschools and teachers interact with students"(p. 164). Therefore, with any systematicchange, efforts like recmitment or promo-tions like awareness should reinforce thereform, otherwise a noble effort such asde-tracking will not be able to infiuence theprinciple issues of race, class, and ability.

Research suggests that in order fordetracking to make a lasting impact, thecommunity of the school should foster aschool climate that is conducive to detrack-ing. The culture or climate is moreimportant than the strategy or intervention(Cooper, 1999). Context cannot be ignored;here are three significant issues to addresswhen a community is trying to create a cli-mate supportive of detracking:1. An open fomm must exist for educators

to dialogue to "confront powerful normsthat are used to structure classroompractice."

2. Curriculum must be inclusive of all cul-tures.

3. Opportunities must increase for ' socialand academic engagement in environ-ments that are nurturing andsupportive." (p.3.)

Removing Instructional Barriers... /745

Table 1:Common Themes in Detracking Study (adapted from Yonezawa et al., 2002)

Themes

Institutional Barriers

Tracked Aspirations

Choosing Respect

Examples

Information distributed unevenly, selectivity of

placement, hidden prerequisites

A sense of entitlement versus a lack of self

confidence or "leveled aspirations"

A desire to be with the peer group or not wanting

to be with people that don't value you

Of further consideration is profession-al development for teachers. In addition tothe recruitment efforts and awareness cam-paigns in place, plus the systematic changeof de-tracking, professional developmentcourses for teachers in the teaching andleaming of diverse populations will needto be implemented. By eliminating abili-ty grouping, instmction will have to changeto meet the needs of more diverse popula-tions. Teachers will need support fordifferentiated instmction. "Culturally com-petent instmctional action is essential toachieving genuine commitment to educa-tional equity, justice, excellence forstudents" (Gay, 2000, p.209).

Sometimes, the biggest barrier to suc-cess is the students themselves. CharlesM. Steele, a Stanford sociologist, foundthat "minority students may go on to'disidentify' with the academic task"( Viadero). They do not want to be accusedof ignoring their culture and assimilatinginto white society. Gay discusses one suchprogram, AVID, that advocates for the suc-cess of marginalized students "withoutsacrificing their cultural and ethnic iden-

tities" (p. 166). Without such efforts by edu-cators to consider a student's perspective,detracking efforts can be sabotaged.

In a study by Yonezawa, Wells, andSema (2002) that considered the impact"freedom of choice" had on a detrackinginitiative, they found that some minoritystudents resisted placement in classes thathad an accelerated curriculum because theylooked for places that made them feelappreciated by the community.

Furthermore, Yonezawa et al. (2002)uncovered three themes as a result of theirresearch on detracking. These themes canoften be interconnected, but they all pro-vide indications why a case of detrackingfails where it should succeed. The fol-lowing table outlines these themes andprovides examples of each theme:

Another barrier to successful detrack-ing reforms is the skill-base of botheducators and students. If teachers andstudents don't know how to work well ingroups, the dynamics can be stiñing (p.168). In Rubin's (2003) study of adetracked classroom, she found that fordetracking to be successful, the barriers of

746 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

the teacher's professional developmentmust coincide with the students' socialdevelopment. The following examplecomes come Rubin's study of ninth gradersand illustrates how worlds collide - evenunintentionally:

Christies' interpretation o theteacher's group assignment strate-gy, heard by the entire class, wasthat it was somehow dangerous togroup African American studentstogether. While this was not theteacher's intention, Christie's' pas-sionate comment indicates howclose to the surface tensions aroundracial issues were in the classroomand haw group placement couldexacerbate such tensions, (p. 14)Despite the barriers described above,

detracking reform efforts have merit. Thecore beliefs of detracking promote demo-cratic structures and practices. Whenequity and excellence can be the standardfor all educational systems, then the gapwill close.

Detracking ReformsThat Support Race to the Top

As a reminder, the four components ofthe NCLB law for educators are account-ability and testing, flexibility and localcontrol, funding for what works, andexpanded parental options (Fact Sheet: NoChild Left Behind). These parameters giveschools a guideline to make reform deci-sions that will produce adequate yearlyprogress for every child. In addition, thecompetitive nature of Obama's Raet to theTop initiative rewards "progress in certainareas, including state assessments and stan-

dards, teacher quality and distribution,improving the performance of low-per-forming schools, and establishing statewidedata systems" (Klein, 2010)

In the instance of detracking as a reformmovement, "Achievement follows oppor-tunities - opportunities that trackingdenies" (Burris & Welner, 2005, p.598).NCLB, as well as Obama's Race to theTop agenda, is first about student achieve-ment and secondly school improvement.Detracking would provide the opportuni-ties for student success by helping toremove the barriers, institutionally, instruc-tionally, or individually, that hinderprogress.

As noted earlier, a change in the systemis not enough to close the gap; and it takesmore than just mere awareness, reinforce-ment, or recruitment to move thismountain. Slavin (1995) argues thatresearch does not justify tracking in anycase and we are negligent if we ignore thisevidence.

As such, dismantling the tracks, at anylevel, could potentially help reach NCLBgoals. For example in the impressive caseof Rockville Centre School District in NewYork as reported by Burris and Welner(2005), their district's reform efforts helpedthem reach ambitious goals. When theresearch against tracking was at its height(Slavin 1995, Oakes & Wells, 1998), thedistrict took on the challenge of detrack-ing classes. Of importance, Rockville didnot do away with low-end and high-endtracks and teach to the middle, "The dis-trict began replacing its tracked classeswith heterogeneously grouped classes inwhich the curriculum formerly reserved

Removing Instructional Barriers... / 747

Table 2:Percentage of Students Earning Regents Diploma at Rockville Center School District (adaptedfrom Burris & Welner, 2005, p.597)

Student Population

African American or

Hispanic Students

White or Asian

American Students

Graduation Year

2000

32%

88%

Graduation Year

2003

82%

97%

for the district's high-track students wastaught" (p.595). They increased theirexpectations that all students can learn.They raised the bar; they set their sightshigh. In doing so, the results are exciting.The following table highlights thoseachievements:

In general, Rockville made a systemicchange and they put in place initiatives forinstructional support during these transi-tional times. For example, the districtoffered "every-other-day support classes"that were "linked to the curriculum;" andteachers were given the fiexibility to "pre-and post-teach topics to students needingadditional resources" (p.597). This factoris crucial in conjunction with Race to theTop goals because it affords the fiexibili-ty and local control needed by schools todemonstrate AYP. Most deterrents ofdetracking worry that the high achievingstudent will be "pulled down," but asRockville demonstrates achievementincreased for them as well.

The results of the detracking efforts ofthe Rockville School District bear testi-mony to the previously mentioned

arguments of Slavin (1995) about the rec-ommended method of detracking by raisingthe bar and helping students meet thoseacademic demands through a variety ofmeans of support. "Ability grouping by itsnature works against democratic and egal-itarian norms, often creates racial or ethnicdivisions, risks making terrible and long-lasting mistakes, and condemns manychildren to low-quality instruction and low-quality futures" (p.222). The authors ofTurning Points 2000 state that "if we wantto improve teaching and learning inschools, reformers must start with wherethe schools are, just as teachers must dis-cover what their students understand, andmisunderstand, in order to target curricu-lum, instruction, and assessmentappropriately" (Jackson and Davis, 2000,p. 48).

Best Practices

InstructionalDifferentiated instruction as described

by Tomlinson (1995) is based on a set ofprinciples to help teachers facilitate learn-

748 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

Table 3: Comparing classrooms (adapted from Tomlinson, 1995, pg. 16).

Traditional Classroom

Whole elass instruction dominates

A single text prevails

Single assessments are most common,

i.e. chapter tests

Instructors rarely consider student

choice

Disregard of learning differences

. A single point of reference determines

excellence

Teachers manage student behavior

Often, one answer is sufficient

Often, student differences are ignored

Differentiated Classroom

A variety of instructional

configurations exist

Multiple resources and materials are

available

Multiple methods of assessment,

formal and informal, are on-going

Interest-based choices fuel student

engagement

Focus on multiple intelligences

Progress over a period of time

determines excellence

Teachers help students become self-

directing leamers

Multiple answers is encouraged

Student differences determine

planning

ing for all students. In detracked class-rooms where diversity rules, such aninstructional framework helps move the-ory into practice.1. Instruction centers on the essential or

core components of the content area.2. Teachers promote the unique gifts and

talents of each student. They accept thestudents as they are and help themachieve all they can be.

3. Daily assessment drives instruction.4. Teachers modify the content, instruc-

tion, and assessment in ways to meet

individual needs.5. Respect fuels the work at hand.6. Instruction is a collaborative process

between the teacher and students.7. Teachers take into account the goal of

the individual with respect ofthe groupnorms.

8. Flexibility is inherent in the design andapproach to teaching and learning.In order to better see the differences

between a traditional classroom and a dif-ferentiated classroom, the following tablejuxtaposes two typical classrooms. Notice

Removing Instructional Barriers... /749

the movement from a teacher-centered,teacher directed environment in the tradi-tional classroom to more student-centered,collaborative environment in the differen-tiated classroom.

Removing instmctional barriers to pro-mote equity and excellence in classroomsfor all students requires concerted effortson several fronts. "Many detrackedresearchers note that curriculum and ped-agogy do not take place in a vacuum" (pg.10). Educators and community membersneed to consider the social aspects of het-erogeneous grouping paradigms as well asthe academic dimensions. Detracked class-rooms should be safe places for studentsto leam. Tbey need to be supportive envi-ronments for students to take leaming risks.Rubin (2006) cautions educators tbat tracksor "refragmentation" can occur at any level- even within a single class if communityvalues are not addressed.

Even with a differentiated instmctionmodel in place and a socially and emo-tionally supportive classroom environment,students in detracked classrooms need"access to meaningful academic support"outside the classroom as well (pg.lO).

InstitutionalInstmctional strategies, such as those

described by Marzano (1998) in Class-room Instruction that Works, supportteachers' planning efforts to meet the needsof diverse leamers inside the differentiat-ed classroom; however, institutional reformefforts must be considered because the canbe critical to overall success of detrackingefforts. From programs to school sites todistricts, detracking reforms must providesupport at three levels.

First, some students will require moresupport in order to make the leap fromlower tracks. In addition to the aforemen-tioned instructional strategies used inclassrooms, extra support classes can givestudents the needed time and attention tomake the necessary gains. "Such classesshould be designed to help students catchup on skills and concepts they may havemissed along the way, and to support themin completing their daily work in thedetracked class" (Rubin, 2006, pg.lO).

Second, teacbers require support too.They need the time to plan these complexlessons. They need the training to helpthem teach in these non-traditional dynam-ic classrooms. They need moreopportunities to work with students indi-vidually. According to Rubin (2006) indetracked schools that did not afford teach-ers support, such as professionaldevelopment or planning time, the teach-ers stmggled with the reform efforts to thepoint of retuming to their former teachingpractices

Third, schools and districts are the piv-otal support mechanism for institutionalreform efforts. If systemic barriers can bebroken down and replaced with a varietyof social and academic support efforts, thenthe achievement gap that often defies eventhe noblest efforts will subsist. Rubin andNoguera (2004) call for schools to step upand support detracking efforts in mean-ingful ways when they wrote:

Although detracking itself may seemlike a substantial alteration of theusual manner of business in our pub-lic schools, even deeper changes inschool stmctures and distribution ofinstitutional resources may b e nee-

750 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

essary for the reform to reach itsintended goals of increasing equityand access for previously under-served students. For detracking totruly serve those whom it wasintended to benefit, schools mayneed to put more resources into mea-sures that support these students.This may include ensuring thatdetracked classes are smaller andtherefore able to provide more per-sonalized support for students. It isalso helpful to add classes and pro-grams designed to accelerate theskills development of students whowere previously tracked low. Final-ly, and perhaps most importantly,teachers who will be required toteach detracked classes must be pro-vided substantial support andtraining on how to teach such class-es. They may also need theopportunity to meet regularly as agroup, to observe each other teach,and to share and analyze studentwork so that they can support eachother in meeting the academic goalsof this reform, (pg. 98).One such institutional reform stmcture

that could help schools with detrackingefforts is the Professional Leaming Com-munities (PLC) model as described byDuFour et al. A PLC focuses on the fol-lowing three core principles: 1) A shift offocus from teaching to learning, 2) A shiftof control from hierarchical to collabora-tive, and 3) A shift from goals to results(DuFour, 2004). First, a leaming centeredenvironment requires the educational sys-tem to investigate what to do when childrenfind leaming difficult. Within a collabo-

rative culture, "teachers become aware ofthe incongmity between their commitmentto ensure learning for all students(designed and applied curriculum) and theirlack of a coordinated strategy to respondwhen students do not leam (acquired cur-riculum)"(p. 7). In this type of setting,DuFour makes the point that "teachersapproach this discrepancy coUaborativelyby designing strategies to ensure that stmg-gling students receive additional time andsupport, no matter who their teacher is"(p.7). The community must respond inquick and direct ways.

Next, collaborative work is the mostimportant component for success as"Teachers work in teams, engaging in anongoing cycle of questions that promotedeep team leaming" (p.8). Schools mustallocate the time for teachers to dialoguein order for significant, important work tooccur! "For meaningful collaboration tooccur, a number of things must also stophappening. Schools must stop pretendingthat merely presenting teachers with statestandards or district curriculum guides willguarantee that all students have access toa common curriculum" (p.8).

Most importantly, professional leam-ing communities will "judge theireffectiveness based on results" (p.9). Asteacher-teams work toward equity andexcellence in their classrooms throughoutthe school year, they will build commonassessments; and it is the examination oftheir students' results from those assess-ments that will be the map to instmction.

PLCs evolve; they are cyclical. Theypromote a continuous learning cycle asteachers collaborate and collaboratorsinvestigate best practices for teaching and

Removing Instructional Barriers... / 751

learning and the cycle repeats. Ultimate-ly, until the gap is closed and studentachievement is at a hundred percent, thework of a PLC continues.

Professional learning communities canwork, but it is work! As a community, thereis a responsibility to and for one another.The goals for learning teams should pro-mote equity and excellence; studentachievement is the priority. It is not asmuch about teaching as it is about learn-ing. Point of view is critical to the successof a professional learning community as theschools move from teacher mode to learn-ing mode - it is a matter of direction.

"The main enemies of large-scalereform are overload and extreme frag-mentation" (Fullan, 2000, p. 6). Theprofessional learning community modelminimizes those dangers. With sharedresponsibility between communities ofexperts working toward common goals,there is less of a chance for "overload" or"extreme fragmentation." The prospectthat a reform movement, specifically PLCs,can be a long-standing effective model forproductive change has never been better.

ConclusionDetracking a school system that has

long established roots is challenging atbest. Despite these challenges, even nowduring Obama's Race to the Top, educatorsneed to champion detracking as an oppor-tunity to change some of the injustices thathide in classrooms. Detracking has thepotentiality to help close the achievementgap. This is a call to reflect upon this under-current that exists in our schools and beginto make the changes necessary to build aculture of high expectations. Why not build

a system of supportive measures to helpstudents succeed, rather than pool all ofthe low achieving students in one class?

While research has not discovered amiracle cure to the close the achievementgap trends, two recent studies called "forbroadening the approaches commonly usedto address the problem now" (Viadero,2005, p. 5). Schools should start with sys-temic changes, fueled by reinforcementefforts and awareness campaigns. Sincethe achievement gap is a persistent cancerin education; schools must be more com-prehensive in their fight against thisdisease.

ReferencesAnsalone, G. (2003) Poverty, tracking, and the

social construction of failure: Internationalperspectives on tracking. Journal of Children& Poverty. 9(1). 3-20.

Burris, C. & Welner, K. (2005, April). Closing theachievement gap by detracking. Phi DeltaKappan. Retrieved electronically April 30,2006 from EBSCOhost research databases.

Cooper, R. (1999). Urban school reform; Studentresponses to detracking in a racially mixedhigh school. JoMrna/ of Education for StudentsPlaced at Risk. 4(3). Retrieved electronicallyApril 30, 2006 form EBSCOhost researchdatabase.

DiMartino, J. & Miles, S. (January 2005). Reach-ing real equity in schools. PrincipalLeadership. Retreived electronically April 1,2007 from EBSChost research databases.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). "What is a "Profession-al Learning Community"?" EducationalLeadership. 63(%)6-U.

Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind. U. S. Depart-ment of Education. Retrieved April 9, 2006from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=mr

Füllen, M. (2000). Three stories of educationalreform. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved April 18,2006 from EBSCOhost research database.

752 / Education Vol. 131 No. 4

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching:Theory, Research and Practice. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Grier, T. & Peterson, K. (2005, April). It's cool tosucceed. Educational Leadership, 62(1). 65-68. Retrieved from http://web23.epnet.com.library .capella.edu/citation.asp?tb=l&_ug=sid+A8BB2CCF%2D

Hallinan, M. (1994). From theory to practice. Soci-ology of Education. 76(2). 79-91. RetreivedApril 13, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(199404)67%3A2%3C79%3ATFITP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Jackson , A.W., & Davis, G.A. (2000). Turningpoints 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21stcentury. New York, NY: Teacher's CollegePress.

Klein, A. (July 30,2010). Obama defends race tothe top. Education Week. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edweek.Org/ew/articles/2010/07/29/37obama.h29.html?tkn=YPSFTuIwSMnvc2wxv6mpspxOROUvOQahOKlB&cmp=clp-edweek.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York,NY: Crown Publishers.

Landsman, J. (2004, Nov). Confronting the racismof low expectations. Educational Leadership.62(3). 28-32.

LaPrade, K. (2008). What happens When StudentsMiss the A Train: A study to decrease thepersistent achievement gap. Doctoral disserta-tion). Available from Dissertations and Thesesdatabase. (UMI No. 3297703)

Marzono, R., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. (2001).Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria,VA: The Association for Supervision and Cur-riculum Development.

Nieto, S. (1999). The Light in Their Eyes: Creat-ing Multicultural Learning Communities. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Oakes, J. & Wells, A. (1998). Detracking: Thesocial construction of ability, cultural politics,and resistance to reform. Teachers CollegeRecord.98(3).4%2-5n.

Rubin, B. (Summer 2003). Unpacking detracking:When progressive pedagogy meets students'social worlds. American Education ResearchJournal. 40(2). 589-573. Retrieved electroni-cally January 19, 2006 from EBSCOhostresearch database.

Rubin, B. (2006). Tracking and Detracking:Debates, evidence, and best practices for a het-erogeneous world.. Theory into Practice.45(1). 4-14. Retrieved electronically March26, 2007 from EBSCOhost research database.

Rubin, B. & Noguera, P. (2004). Tracking detrack-ing: Sorting through the dilemmas andpossibilities of detracking in practice. Equityand Excellence in Education. 37(2). 92-101.

Slavin, R. (1995, November). Detracking and itsdetractors. Phi Delta Kappan. 77(3). 220-222.

Sleeter, C. (Winter 2001). Diversity versus whiteprivilege. Rethinking Schools Online.Retrieved April 23, 2006 fromhttp://ww w.rethinkingschools .org/archive/15_O2/Intl52.shtml

Tieso, C. (Fall 2003). Ability grouping is not justtracking anymore. Roeper Review. 26(1). 29-36.

Tomlinson, C (1995). The Differentiated Class-room: Responding to the needs of alt learners.Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Viadero, D. (2000, March 22). Lags in minorityachievement defy traditional explanations.Education Week. 79(28). 1-4.

Viadero, D. (2005, April 4). Two studies trackachievement-gap trends. Education Week.24(34). 5-9.

Welner, K. (2004, March). Tracking trounces testscores. Education Digest, 69(1). 15-17.

Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2006). Students' per-spectives on tracking and detracking. TheoryInto Practice. 45(\). 15-23. Retrieved elec-tronically March 26, 2007 from EBSCOhostresearch database.

Yonezawa, S., Wells, A., & Sema, L (2002, Spring)Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" indetracking schools. American EducationalResearch Journal. 39(\). Retrieved electroni-cally January 19, 2006 from ProQuestInformation and Leaming Company.

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.