eaching quality is that great so as to hinder learning in lower tracks. While I was in high school, several of the teachers I had for higher level courses also taught their standard-level counterparts. This is not to say there were slight variances in teaching practices between tracks, but I believe the teachers I had treasured their position in society to educate youth, rather high or low tracked. One argument against tracking is that the quality and ability of the teachers themselves may vary among different tracks. Sometimes, teachers prefer not to teach high tracks because they find it threatening to work with students who challenge their authority or who are of high social status (Oaks) Still other critics of education adhere to the notion that teachers themselves may be tracked, with those judged to be the most competent, most experienced, or otherwise most highly regarded at the school assigned to the top tracks(Oaks). The fallacy in the logic that teachers themselves may be tracked unearths a great quandary in the educational world. If this is true, and teachers are tracked in a similar manner in which students are, wouldnt it also be true that when we absolve of this tracking system these same teachers will be teaching the same students who wouldve been placed in higher tracks? Where does one draw the line? Society needs to understand that irrespective of the program the United States ends up adopting, human flaw and ineptitude is an inherent weakness in any learning environment.Student MotivationWithout question, one object of ability tracking has been successful: motivation for students success. Students who are tracked feel as though they can succeed more readily. In an article written by Harvard Professor Thomas Loveless, he states that little research indicates that tracking harms students self-esteem. In fact, the evidence tilts slightly toward the conclusion that low ability students self-concept is strengthened from ab...
