I generally appreciated the context and experience in the “Your Review: School” essay, but I think you’ve correctly highlighted the criticism of tracking as by far its weakest point.
It reads as a motte-and-bailey argument, which appears to claim “tracking has minimal impact”, but then falls back on evidence and anecdotes that only support “tracking, as currently practiced within existing bureaucratic and politic constraints, only allows kids to do more advanced work by ‘a year or two’”.
The author seemed to not engage with the question of “What kind of outcomes would be possible if we actually got tracking right, and avoid the ‘Parents will insist that their kid join’ problem.”
I generally appreciated the context and experience in the “Your Review: School” essay, but I think you’ve correctly highlighted the criticism of tracking as by far its weakest point.
It reads as a motte-and-bailey argument, which appears to claim “tracking has minimal impact”, but then falls back on evidence and anecdotes that only support “tracking, as currently practiced within existing bureaucratic and politic constraints, only allows kids to do more advanced work by ‘a year or two’”.
The author seemed to not engage with the question of “What kind of outcomes would be possible if we actually got tracking right, and avoid the ‘Parents will insist that their kid join’ problem.”