Detracking Remedies: Court-Ordered Dismantling of Ability Tracks

• In Event: 66.068 - Policy and Precedent: An Examination of Legal Implications in Education for Policy Scholars

Abstract

Purpose
Rubin (2007) defines detracking as “the dismantling of ability-driven tracks and the placement of students into classes that are intentionally heterogeneous in terms of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, perceived ability, and previous achievement” (p. 64). The primary aims of detracking are to provide all students access to a high-level curriculum and rigorous teaching (Rubin & Noguera, 2004). Courts have a crucial role to play in the United States detracking policy (Wells & Oakes, 1996). Wells and Oakes (1996) argue that a court ordered mandate to detrack might not change widely held beliefs about race and intelligence but could deliver “leverage to change agents” who are attempting to detrack.
First, Hobson v. Hansen (1967) found that Washington D.C. district schools used tracking to racially re-segregate students and ruled that tracking was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th amendment. This decision was the first case that found tracking to be unconstitutional but was not the last. The one case that stood out from the other detracking cases was the Hoots v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1982). Much of the difference rests in the extensive mandated remedies (e.g. mandated teacher professional development, elimination of tracks) that emerged from the court case. The purpose of this paper is to uncover the ways that these two federal challenges to detracking won and how each differs in terms of the remedies that were prescribed by the courts. I ask the questions:

1.What are the similarities and differences between the two court cases?
2.How were the remedies in Hoots able to mandate more specific remedies than Hobson?

Methods
Data for this study came from public source documents from the Washington D.C. district and the Woodland Hills district regarding detracking. I also focused on the court decision remedy documents for each court decision. I took a thematic inductive/deductive approach for my analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). For the deductive codes, I used Wells and Oakes (1996) article to guide my codebook development and schema.

Findings
Initial findings show that both court cases were able to win because they showed intent to separate races with the tracking system initiated after desegregation. Yet, Hoots provided more ambitious remedies which created extensive reforms than the Hobson decision. For example, after the Hoots decision, the court ordered the district to implement compensatory and remedial programs for students, provide appropriate in-service training and workshops for teachers and staff. Although, the court did not rule at the end of the process the district had achieved unitary status much progress was made with most of the grades and subjects being detracked than Hobson achieved in Washington D.C.

Scholarly significance
There is a lack of understanding around why detracking court ordered remedies find success. This analysis helps to explain the slow movement towards achieving detracking. Policy makers can better understand the conflicts that exist between stakeholders in similar reform efforts.

Author

• Shannon Holder, Central Connecticut State University