De-tracking High Schools – Will it Increase College Attendance?

This past week we have looked at the notion of de-tracking high schools. We have examined the rationale for the concept and provided some ideas about how to teach in classrooms that are not homogeneously grouped. To finish our look this week we look at an example of where the notion of de-tracking is misunderstood and being referred to as a solution for a problem that it is not likely to solve.

The Problem in Maine
In the tiny State of Maine, the issue of high school graduates continuing their academic studies at the next level has become a great concern for many in the state. Statistics clearly indicate a disappointing percentage of students being accepted for postsecondary education and then, yet an even smaller percentage enrolling in college.

A recently released report from the Sen. George J. Mitchell Scholarship Research Institute reveals two disappointing statistics. It seems that about 85 percent of 11th- and 12th-graders aspire to a two- or four-year college. However, only 70% of Maine students actually get accepted to college and of those accepted only 57% enroll in college.

That leads to two key questions. Why are student aspirations to attend college not matched by the percentage of students who actually get accepted to school? Is it because those students are poorly prepared and therefore being rejected? Even more unusual is the subsequent drop off for actual enrollment. What happens to those students who have been accepted but later opt not to attend college, especially after both aspiring to higher ed and then being given the opportunity?

The folks at the Mitchell Institute proposed a solution to the problem. They insisted that to solve the college aspirations, acceptance, and enrollment issues high schools need to be de-tracked.

Wrong Solution
Lynne Miller, a professor of educational leadership and the director of the Southern Maine Partnership at the University of Southern Maine, bristled at the suggestion. In a recent op-ed piece, she quoted the words of Will Rogers in response to simple, singular solutions to what is truly a very complex issue.

“For every problem, there is a simple solution, and it is always wrong,” states Rogers.

The proponents of de-tracking high school often use this college issue as a basis for moving to a system that eliminates homogeneous grouping. But there are two aspects at play here, homogeneous grouping versus homogeneous programming. Unfortunately, many people see the topics as one in the same. That is certainly the case with the folks at the Mitchell Institute.

In her op ed piece Miller notes that de-tracking is not a solution to the particular problem at hand. She turns to the very statistics coming out of the Mitchell Institute to debunk the argument. The Mitchell Institute report indicates that students in the general and vocational programs total about 15 percent and it is these students who are not applying to college. These students have clearly demonstrated that they are interested in preparing for the world of work. Should these programs be removed in the hopes that more students might aspire to college or will removing these programs simply increase student drop out rates?

According to Miller, de-tracking the college preparatory students will not change these results. About 85% are in the college track and they are already in an academic program preparing them for college level study.

In other words, the de-tracking notion must be focused on the basic course of study and not the ability grouping within these courses of studies. According to Miller it is not under-preparation for college level programming, it is more likely an issue of “financing, disadvantages of class and the suitability of college for everyone.”

According to Miller, “Multiple and complex problems require multiple and complex solutions.” She also acknowledges the extreme difficulty with addressing the issues of college financing and the long-term disadvantages of class. She notes that these are fundamental problems based within a larger social and economic context and they will not be solved by schools alone.

College is Not for Everyone
Professor Miller also states the obvious, a view point that fits whole heartedly with my experience both in education and within my own family. Notes Miller, when “we give the message that everyone should go to college, we are misrepresenting college and misguiding students.”

There is a definitive need for a comprehensive, high-quality program that features an ample dose of rigor for all students. But aspiring to a vocation or a trade is every bit as worthy as college. In fact, such a goal is far more appropriate for many students than a one that seeks to plug everyone into a college prep program.

A college prep program is simply not the be-all and end-all of public school options. The idea that eliminating programming should be equated with de-tracking is to overstate the basis for eliminating homogeneous grouping. Proponents of de-tracking insist that a program should not be constructed that has tiers within the program. These proponents are not advocating the elimination of appropriate vocational programming for students.

Misguided solutions that seek to equate the two concepts as if they are one in the same will likely see the exact opposite transpire. As Miller notes, to do so will not create increased college enrollment rates but rather a reduced high school graduation rate that will simply give the state yet “another problem to solve.”