Science, math, world languages, English, and history are the five required classes every Parker student takes for at least three years, but only the first three are tracked. Because the humanities aren’t tracked, students often put less importance on these classes, and it puts those whose talents lie in the humanities at a disadvantage. For these reasons and more, Parker needs to track humanities.

The most common argument against tracking is that it is of no benefit to students, however, two studies published in March of 2016 can help to dispel the myth. A study from the Brookings Institute showed a direct correlation between starting to track classes in eighth grade and stronger results on APs. While standardized tests are definitely not the best way to measure ability in a subject, they can be a strong indicator of a student’s knowledge of a subject.

Second, many bring up the idea that Black and Hispanic students are likely to be hurt by tracking. While this may be true in the aggregate, a Brookings Institute study found that “tracking has been overlooked as a potential tool for promoting equity,” concluding that students of color benefited more than their white counterparts when placed in the same AP classes.

Now that I have hopefully convinced you that tracking is a good thing, I will move onto my core argument about why humanities should be tracked, an argument much less based in fact.

Parker doesn’t track humanities, as far as I can tell, for just one reason. To quote a letter to the editors written in 2016 after an article tackling the same issue was published, “tracking stands in direct opposition to the essential elements of Progressive Education.”

I can’t say this history teacher is wrong–I don’t know enough about progressive education. But, after researching the core tenets of progressive education, I came across an idea time and time again: personalized education. This would seem to suggest that progressive education not only condones tracking, but actively encourages it.