It’s interesting to read that tracking is a complex structure that is simply just reinforcing cultural assumptions and actually influence the student’s identity. The type of instruction that a group of ‘at-risk’ students may get is going to be different than those placed in a higher level. It’s talks about how teachers in low-track classes are often unprepared to teach the subject and usually new teachers. They assert that curriculum is inherently political also when it comes to tracking because social class interests sustain it. It is simply sorting students and tracking them, which is therefore preparing them for a place in society. Retention is also intertwined with other policies and practices in schools that worsen inequality. The decision to hold someone back is often based on high-stake tests scores. When reading about the high-stakes test, I really started to see how curriculum is inherently political. When looking at schools with low-test scores, they often make teachers change their teaching to begin to teach to the test. There is this vicious cycle of failure that really needs to be stopped but can only be stopped at a higher level then just the school. It is a political …show more content…
It was interesting because during my junior year, I had this rebellion and had a really hard time with ‘the system’. My friends were learning totally different things in their ‘regular’ classes than I was in my honors and they were getting away with doing really quite mediocre work. Their teachers taught out of textbooks and their assignments were out of the books. I started thinking how pointless it was that I was doing all this work only to be getting a better GPA but ending up at the same schools as people because I knew I wasn’t going to be able to afford to go to a better