It seems to me that the main problem with tracking is this... that it's permanent.
Exactly! Once most people understood this, saw the permanence as a flaw, and backed the cessation of "tracking", some reformers began to use this tainted word, "tracking", to describe any type of sorting students by readiness and ability.
The word "tracking" can be used to smear various considerations for appropriate placement of a student, and makes it difficult to have meaningful discussion of cluster grouping, Single Subject Acceleration (SSA), prerequisite courses, and other means of sorting students by readiness and ability.
At one point, students needed to have done well in certain prerequisite classes in order to have the foundational knowledge and skills to take (and succeed in) Honors and AP courses. In recent years, the practice of prerequisites and GPA as qualifying criteria for eligibility to enroll in these advanced academics has changed to a practice of student self-selection for enrollment in these courses.
There was lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of this, in response to an article posted on the forum some time ago. I believe it was titled something akin to "Honors Classes for All". If I recall, the number of seats for these courses was not expanded to meet the increased demand, therefore some highly qualified students were not allowed to take these courses. Meanwhile some less qualified students were failing and/or dropping advanced courses, even with school-provided study and support groups. It seemed costly, ineffective, and inefficient. Few seemed to benefit, while many suffered setbacks. I'll try to find the discussion thread and post a link to it here.
For now, I'll go with Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All, although I recalled a much longer discussion thread.
