Detracking: The Social Construction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform

Abstract

Structural changes necessary in detracking efforts challenge not only the technical dimensions of schooling, but also the normative and political dimensions. We argue that detracking reform confronts fundamental issues of power, control, and legitimacy that are played out in ideological struggles over the meaning of knowledge, intelligence, ability, and merit. This article presents results from a three-year longitudinal case study of ten racially and socioeconomically mixed secondary schools participating in detracking reform. We connect prevailing norms about race and social class that inform educators’, parents’, and students’ conceptions of intelligence, ability, and giftedness with the local political context of detracking. By examining these ideological aspects of detracking we make a case for reexamining common presumptions that resistance to policies providing greater opportunities to low-income and minority children is driven by rational estimates of the learning costs and benefits associated with such reforms.

Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School

“…Existing research suggests that teacher efficacy, particularly teachers' beliefs about students' ability to learn, is less amenable to reform efforts (Newman et al, 1989;Ross, 1995). 38 Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the academic rigor of a school can be disconnected from teacher expectations and improved in a technical manner absent of the normative and political changes that would be needed to affect teacher attitudes about students (see Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997). Nonetheless, reviews of so-called ''comprehensive school reforms'' that alter school organization and instructional practices show that they can significantly improve student achievement even among high-poverty schools (Borman et al, 2003).…”

“…39 Some observers believe, however, that desegregation, particularly socioeconomic integration, is the only way to achieve equal educational op-portunity for all children (Kahlenberg, 2001;Orfield, 2001;Ryan, 1999). These researchers have noted that schools tend to respond to the demands and political clout of their constituents; thus, parents and students with the power to demand more challenging curriculum and command high expectations have schools with different ''school cultures'' and ''academic presses'' than less powerful and influential families (see Brantlinger, 2003;Oakes et al, 1997;Wells & Serna, 1996). Thus, poor students who enroll in schools with a majority of such powerful families are more likely to be in schools that offer challenging college-prep curriculum and where teachers have overall high expectations (see Wells & Crain, 1997).…”

Defining Rigor in Justice-Oriented EdD Programs: Preparing Leaders to Disrupt and Transform Schools

“…These pillars work together to uphold the status quo and push against systemic change. The literature is rife with examples of such resistance especially from those who benefit from the present system (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oakes et al, 2012). Theoharis (2008) identified multiple sources of resistance to equity-oriented PreK-12 school leadership:Principals leading for social justice encountered tremendous resistance.…”

Brown and the Failure of Civic Responsibility

“…Kirp (1974) warned both about the ambiguity and limitations of IQ tests and the danger that classification of students tends to be of long duration, with significant educational consequences and very infrequent movement from low to high groupings. However, as gifted programs and ability tracking grew in parallel movement with the efforts to desegregate schools, they tended to reflect not only educational interventions, but also normative and political struggles over power relations and the distribution of opportunity (Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997).…”

“…In my school district, I encountered this form of elitist construction of superiority and deservingness, which served to attract a relatively wealthy and White group of parents from private to public schools. Knowing that their children would benefit not only from traditional views of intelligence, which are skewed in their favor (Oakes et al, 1997), but also from resources that were clearly superior, these parents could be counted upon to fiercely oppose any movement toward equity in gifted education. They knew very well, when our questions about program fairness were publicly raised, that the entire system of meritocracy that protected access and privilege for their children was at risk (Oakes et al).…”