Book review of Tracking: Conflicts and Resolutions by A. T. Lockwood.

Lockwood, A.T. (1996). Tracking: Conflicts and resolutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, $12.95 (pb). ISBN 0803962681.

The tracking and ability grouping literature falls into three categories: policy statements based on philosophy/ideology, policy statements based on research, and curriculum and instructional modifications designed for either the tracked or detracked classroom. Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood's contribution falls into the first category. This little book introduces readers in the field of gifted education to some voices that might otherwise be unfamiliar to us.

The book is composed of an introduction and five interviews. The first and last chapters were inspired by childhood traumas with tracking, making the text of those chapters more heated and, to me, less convincing. In balance, however, Lockwood brings together a set of varied perspectives that are enhanced by her thoughtful questions and fine interviewing skills.

In my opinion, the best chapter in the book is the interview with Adam Gamoran, professor of sociology and education at the University of Wisconsin. His ideas are focused on quality instruction, which he defines as that which includes a lot of respectful teacher-student interaction and stimulates students' deep understanding of content. He judges low track classes as successful when they help prepare students to keep pace with their classmates in other tracks, although he has found few that meet that goal. He acknowledges that teachers are hesitant to detrack because they do not see how teaching can be conducted successfully with the tremendous range of abilities and performance levels they encounter among age peers. Gamoran proposes that an alternative to detracking is improving the bottom track. He argues that suburban schools are far more pressured than urban schools to maintain tracking so top students get into elite colleges. He believes that placement of students in low tracks is based on test scores rather than social class and race. When the tests are poorly designed and exhibit test bias, then ability grouping is clearly problematic. But when tests are valid and challenging, they can raise expectations and improve education for all children. Gamoran says that the best argument that can be made for maintaining ability grouping is that subject matter is not conducive to equal performance, and therefore it is better to divide students by performance level and provide them all with high quality instruction from enthusiastic and well-prepared teachers. The caveat would be that the low tracks not be dead end in nature.

The next chapter synthesizes an interview with Professor Reba Neukom Page from the University of California-Riverside. Page correctly views the controversy over tracking as a reflection of American societal tensions between individualism and the common good. Because research results on this issue are mixed, policy makers end up falling back on their philosophical views. This very thoughtful chapter poses several difficult questions. Page wonders why it is acceptable to differentiate based on gender in a women's studies program or on race in an African American studies program, while differentiating by ability, motivation, or interest is verboten. She also questions how heterogeneous groupings will be created. Will gifted students continue to be split up one-to-a-classroom, as will be children of different races? Is this a positive direction classroom equity and excellence?

Anne Wheelock is a well-known and passionate advocate of detracking. She acknowledges that Gamoran's suggestion of improving low track instruction and content offerings was a reasonable place to start. But she does not agree that it is a legitimate end point for school reform. According to Wheelock, some students, especially low performing ones, will still need to receive separate and additional resource room instruction so they can participate reasonably in heterogeneous classes. She views the detracking movement as losing ground because society perceives that there are not enough resources to go around for all students, and therefore the best investment lies with those children with the most obvious talents and abilities.

A veteran English teacher was the interviewee for the fourth chapter. When some colleagues at his school proposed detracking, Roger Genest joined the fray as a cynic. In the end, he became an advocate. The description of this journey was very interesting, as were his conclusions. Although achievement levels on standardized tests did not change, he found the ambiance of the school improved and more students were choosing to go to college (from 38% while tracked to 90% posttracking). I would certainly consider these two outcomes to be important benefits of detracking. We know, however, that in recent years, colleges have been desperate for attendees, so much so that virtually every university now offers remediation. I'd be curious to know how many of the students from Genest's high school need remediation in college. Genest also reported that eventually, not one freshman chose to enroll in accelerated classes. Is this a positive or negative outcome? Clearly, getting veteran teachers to buy into detracking is essential to its success. Genest is the best kind of veteran teacher--one who is constantly looking to improve and challenge himself.

The last chapter describes an interview with Anna Hunderfund, an assistant superintendent of schools on Long Island. As a result of an incorrect track assignment in childhood, she is opposed to tracking and competition. Nevertheless, she claims to recognize excellence in her schools in at least 11 domains (not listed) in addition to academics. Hunderfund offers no solutions on how to deal with varying levels of ability in any domain. This chapter was the least satisfying in the book, because it did not add anything new to the discussion.

Lockwood does not include a summary chapter, probably because the book is part of a series on controversial issues in education, and readers are supposed to derive their own conclusions. Although I would have appreciated having at least one overtly enthusiastic supporter of tracking interviewed and others listed in bibliography, I'd recommend this book to my colleagues in the field because it brings us insights and arguments that might otherwise be ignored in the heated rhetoric we are more used to encountering.

Originally published in Roeper Review 21(3), February/March 1999, pp. 232-233.

Guest Editors' Comments on the Book Review of Tracking: Conflicts and Resolutions by A. T. Lockwood

In her review of Lockwood's philosophical analysis of tracking, Rena Subotnik, while taking issue with many of the author's conclusions, nonetheless recommends that educators in the field of gifted education read the book, if only to familiarize themselves with arguments that are sometimes used to oppose programming for gifted students. This book is part of a series on controversial issues in education, and, to the author's credit, it presents the issues and leaves it to the reader to draw his or her conclusions. However, as Subotnik points out, missing from the book is an ardent and well-articulated argument in favor of tracking.

Reviewed by Rena F. Subotnik, director of the Center for Gifted Education Policy at the American Psychological Foundation. At the time of this review's publication, and since 1986, Dr. Subotnik was a Professor of Education at Hunter College and research/curriculum consultant to Hunter's laboratory schools for gifted children. She is author of Genius Revisited: High IQ Children Grown Up (1993), and co-editor of Beyond Terman: Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of Giftedness and Talent (with Karen Arnold), Remarkable Women: Perspectives on Female Talent Development (with Karen Arnold and Kathleen Noble), and the second edition of the International Handbook of Research on Giftedness and Talent (with Kurt Heller, Franz M6nks, and Robert Sternberg).