Tracking: Good or Bad?

In my Edu 210 class last semester we spent a lot of time talking about tracking in schools and whether or not it was a good idea. More recently in my Psyc of Adolescents class I presented on a chapter in my textbook; more specifically I talked about tracking. For those of you who may not know exactly what tracking is, it is separating the students usually in different classes based on their academic abilities. There are usually three levels of classes; high achieving, average and remedial

An advantage of tracking is it can allow teachers to design lesson plans that best fit students abilities. As far as I can tell there are many more cons to tracking then pros. In general students in lower tracks receive a poorer education, either because the quality of teaching is less or because the work is less challenging and is less likely to involve critical thinking.

While researching this topic a little more I came upon an article at usatoday.com. The article, Some Schools Grouping by Skill, Not Grade Level, shows a different take on tracking. A school district in Kansas City, MO is trying this new approach. It has been done before in smaller districts in Alaska and Maine, but this will be the largest district to use this approach. Basically instead of kids moving from grade to grade based on their age, they will move up in school once they have mastered a subject. The students will work at their own pace and meet with teachers to decide what part of the curriculum to work on. They would work individually or in small groups on projects, or units, that are tailored to their skill level. This means some students would be able to get the work done quicker and move on the college while other students can take longer and stay until they have mastered the material.

What do you think? Does this seem like a good alternative to the traditional tracking system?