There is something ominous floating around in the educational atmosphere. Spending cuts and ubiquitously declining admissions rates at universities across the nation have struck a foreboding mood, and students now sit as ducks on water, unsure and perhaps unequipped to deal with the adverse circumstances surrounding them. One element remains clear: as times get tougher, students must get tougher too.
But we have not gotten tougher. A society that used to pride itself on individualism has come to promote the preservation of collective complacency at the expense of recognizing achievement. In no arena is this trend more evident than education. Take Massapequa High School for example. In the last few years, two policies were revoked with similar, progressive goals in mind: rankings and the track system.
Class rank has existed since the incipient stages of high school education as a measure of a graduate’s achievement. However, four years ago Massapequa School District eliminated the publication of these rankings to all, including the students themselves.
Principal Dr. Williams approves of the abolition of rankings that the high school administration passed when she was the principal at the Ames campus. “Ranking did not put our students in a better position for college admissions. In fact, in some instances it may have hurt them,” Dr. Williams said.
The main problem created by the abolition of rankings is that many students who could have found pride in their rank have been denied the knowledge—the knowledge of their own status among their peers. And to those who argue that ranking can hurt students, the system can be done so that no one must know a student’s rank unless he releases it. To get rid of rankings is simply one more step on the path to equalizing the student body and minimizing individual achievement.
Another educational reform was the abolition of the track system which sorted students into four levels of classes of varying rigor. Tracking provided for maximum specialization of class levels which enabled each student to learn at his own pace. But it also created controversy, as students were defined by the level of class they took—categorized by intelligence.
Several years ago, the track system was replaced with the current system, in which higher level classes are open to all students who wish to take them, regardless of their preparedness for the more intensive work load they will take on. The remainder reside in heterogeneous settings labeled “Regents.”
Many teachers applaud this decision. “Schools must act in the best interests of all students, not just the gifted,” Mrs. Tonn, twelfth grade English teacher said. “It is the job of educators to provide a free and appropriate education to all. It is not the job of educators to create scholastic winners and losers. While tracking may have been a more efficient way to sort students and cover material, it was ultimately intellectual segregation. We don’t segregate or discriminate in this country. Every student should have the right to access all the amenities that a district can afford to provide. After all, it is their parents who are paying for it.”
Though Mrs. Tonn makes a valuable point about the benefits of opportunity-for-all education, the open enrollment system has had adverse effects on students of all ability levels. The reason tracking is more effective is not just because it allows for the greatest development of AP students—it also allows for greater development in the abilities of all students. Under the current system, too many kids are pushed into AP classes who may not be ready for them.
They are the greatest victims of the open enrollment system. Ready for a challenge greater than regents classes offer, but unprepared for the rigor of AP, these students are forced to struggle in AP or coast in regents. The track system or the introduction of an honors level in between regents and AP, would present these students with a challenge appropriate for their skill sets. This is why the current system is not conducive to intellectual development for students of all ability levels.
For that reason and others, many teachers disapprove of the policy change from tracking to open enrollment. “I taught classes during the time when there was tracking,” long-time AP social studies teacher Mrs. Hawkins said. “Class sizes were much smaller and kids did not feel obligated to take AP classes unless they were really interested in the subject matter. When kids were grouped with kids with similar interests the class discussions were much more productive and focused.”
Though well-intentioned, policies such as the abolition of the ranking system and the track system in Massapequa High School are the bane of modern education. The world is a tough place, and it’s only getting tougher. Though current policies established with the intent of protecting students’ feelings may spare them of a tough reality check in high school, it will set them up for brutal disappointment in college and beyond, as they are forced to learn the hard way exactly what it feels like to be told they are not as good as they thought they were.