Tracking or the separation of students by ability and curriculum has enjoyed a long and controversial history in elementary and secondary schooling throughout the United States. Opponents of this structure contend that tracking impacts negatively on the self-concept of lower-tracked students, limits such students opportunity to learn. Also, it is believed that tracking perpetuates the existing social class structure. Proponents of tracking believe that tracking is a unique means of individualizing instruction. As concerns over test scores and functional literacy continue to grow, the practice of tracking has become increasingly controversial. Several educational and child-advocacy organizations have recommended the elimination of tracking. There are states, which have called for the establishment of classes with a common curriculum, and stressing de-tracking. The question is: Is de-tracking really the answer? This article questions whether de-tracking in the schools can achieve greater equity and excellence in terms of students' performance. The article also identifies and explores the strengths and weaknesses of the various types of tracking, and suggests that some forms of tracking may be better suited for educating students and achieving excellence in education. Finally, this article offers policy implications emerging from research findings as a means of enhancing equity and academic achievement in the schools.
Despite the fact that many educators question whether tracking enhances academic achievement and equity in the schools, the practice of educational tracking or the separation of students by ability and curricula continues to pervade American education (Oakes, 1985; Pallas, 1994; Persell, 1992; Wheelock, 1992). Critics of tracking suggest that tracking limits opportunities for students to learn and seriously restricts their access to a full array of academic experiences. Critics also contend that students in upper tracks complete more academic courses and are thereby afforded more high-status knowledge (Oakes, 1997; Page, 1987, 1991). Since movement within tracks in the schools is relatively restricted, students assigned to low tracks are rarely presented with critical-thinking and other higher-order skills. Accordingly, critics of tracking suggest that tracking enhances social reproduction in society and provides a means of segregating minority students in desegregated schools (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Oakes & Lipton, 1994). In light of the increasing calls for reform, many states including California, Kentucky, Maryland and Massachusetts have begun to re-examine the practice of ability grouping and have called for heterogeneous class groupings with a common curriculum or de-tracking.
Proponents of de-tracking insist that a wide range of academic diversity within the same class creates an effective environment for learning (Manlove & Baker, 1995; Oakes & Lipton, 1992). De-tracked classes provide increased academic stimulation to low achievers and eliminate the stigma associated with being assigned to a lower track. Proponents believe that de-tracking also eliminates the possibility that unprepared students will receive a slower-paced and inferior-quality instruction. Is de-tracking then really the answer?
More recently, the idea of de-tracking in the schools has become the object of intense criticism. Proponents of tracked schools argue that de-tracking may increase equity in education but only at the risk of encouraging academic mediocrity in the schools. In light of the growing movement for educational reform, this article examines the arguments in favor of de-tracking and explores arguments advanced by proponents of tracking. It identifies strengths and weaknesses of various types of tracking structures and suggests that, while some may encourage inequality, others may facilitate academic achievement. A full-scale de-tracking in the schools, therefore, may be unnecessary. In the end, the article offers a number of policy implications as a means of enhancing equity and excellence in education.
Development of self-concept
A leading argument offered in favor of de-tracking stems from what some consider to be tracking’s negative impact on affective development or self-concept (Hallam, 2000; Oakes, 1985; Page, 1991). Tracking may affect the self-concept and motivation of lower-track students who may internalize a feeling of inferiority because of their assigned level within the hierarchy of tracking (i.e., at the bottom) (Page, 1991). Research further suggests that revisions in self-concept and social identity may be accomplished by means of a labeling process, which often takes place at the peer-group level (Gamoran & Berends, 1987). Students of presumed low ability may not be aware of their relative position until they are publicly listed and assigned to a low track. Being assigned to a low track for students may lead to a downward revision of their self-concept. Along this line, it is interesting to note that early research finds that tracked students refer to themselves in relation to their respective track as slow, dumb or smart (Metz, 1978). Research also uncovers that teachers generally hold lower academic expectations for students in lower-tracks than they do for students in upper-tracked classes. This same research also finds that teachers often convey this positive or negative expectation to students by means of comments and gestures. Tracking may further impact students’ self-concept by enabling them to internalize the perceptions and expectations of teachers, resulting from their assigned levels in the hierarchy of tracking (Boaler, 1997; Ireson & Hallam, 1999).
Proponents of de-tracking also contend that tracking polarizes students into pro and anti-school groups, and this division impacts student affective development (Ball, 1981; Finley, 1984). Because of this observation, lower-tracked students in schools tend to resist rules and regulations within the schools, and adopt anti-social attitudes and behavior, such as alcohol abuse and truancy in an effort to dignify their non-academic identity ((Ball, 1981; Schartz, 1981;Willis, 1981; Kellam, 1994).
In their study of American high schools, Schafer and Olexa (1971) argue the difficulty in proving a causal link between discussion about tracking and school misconduct, and yet suggest that the frustration associated with assigning students on the basis of a tracking system may be a cause of rebellion exhibited by lower-tracked students. The authors reveal that 19% of the upper-tracked students compared to 70% of the lower-tracked students admit to three or more violations of school code. A change to de-tracked schools will not necessarily improve the situation!
In spite of research findings that tracking may result in low self-concept of lower-tracked students and even polarize students into pro and anti-school behaviors, advocates of tracking contend that de-tracking will not improve the situation. They suggest that tracking reform should proceed with caution because of the fear that such a reform creates mixed ability classes. Advocates for tracking believe that creating learning environments in which less able students will be forced to make invidious comparisons with their more-able peers may seriously affect the self-confidence of lower-tracked students. It is also the case that tracking may enhance the self-confidence of students assigned to upper tracks, and that any dismantling of the tracking structure may lessen the positive impact tracking has on higher-tracked students’ self-concept. Additionally, proponents of tracking point to research, which reveals a difference in the rate of misconduct of students in the tracking system but question whether these differences are the results of structures related to tracking, and processes that emerge within the tracks, or whether these differences existed beforehand as a result of some other variable such as social class (Gamoran & Berends, 1987).
Opponents of tracking also advance the argument that de-tracking would provide an enriched learning environment for all students. They contend that less academically motivated students would be more positively challenged by the presence of higher-ability students in the same class. Similarly, more advanced students would solidify their knowledge by working with and communicating what they have learned to others. They assert that tracking creates the impression that some students possess high academic potential while others do not, thereby facilitating the development of differential teacher expectations for student success or failure. Additionally, this expectation impacts curriculum that is presented by teachers and, as well, the manner in which curriculum is presented.
Research has uncovered that often students assigned to lower tracks receive less, and more simplified versions of the curriculum (Ansalone, 2001; Oakes & Lipton, 1992; Hallinan, 1991). In time, this differential treatment often results in an increase in the cognitive achievement gap between lower- and upper-tracked students, which only benefits upper-tracked students (Coleman, 1966; Gamoran, 1987). Consequently, opponents of tracking contend that de-tracking schools would lead to greater academic achievement and equity for all students. To date, however, research dealing with the impact of tracking on academic achievement is still not conclusive.
Proponents of tracking believe that de-tracking is more likely to produce academic mediocrity--- a classroom in which instructors teach to the middle and miss both extremes of ability levels (Kulick & Kulick, 1992). Also, proponents of tracking insist that a tracking provides a means of individualizing the instruction to diverse learners and enhances academic achievement and self-concept of lower-tracked students by eliminating invidious comparisons (Goldberg, 1966). In support of this argument, Mosteller (1996) finds that tracking enhances reading skills for disadvantaged groups. Similarly, tracked by ability (Sternberg, 1997), the Yale Summer Program reveals that students participate more actively and report better attitudes toward school.
Proponents of tracking also underscore the ability of tracking to enhance academic achievement for all ability levels in subjects that are organized sequentially such as math and algebra. Research reveals that heterogeneously grouped math students learn less than those tracked by ability (Epstein & MacIver, 1992). For this reason, math instructors have been reluctant to encourage heterogeneous grouping of students (Loveless, 1994).
Tracking within the Catholic school system has been supported (Valli, 1986, 1990). Valli’s (1986) study of three urban Catholic schools uncovers a positive and challenging learning environment at all track levels. The teachers in Valli’s study held high expectations for the system of tracking. In this study, it is also reported that little negative self-concept was evident among students assigned to low tracks. This research notes that special care and attention provided to lower-tracked students may support the belief that tracking can facilitate student learning. So how is it possible for educators to reconcile the apparent discrepancies in findings regarding the impact of tracking on students’ academic achievement?
One answer may lie in the type of structure of tracking that is employed within schools. Structures employed to track students with rigid structural characteristics in which placement within a track is fixed (or relatively unchangeable) can retard student learning (Gamoran, 1992). Although tracking has effects on student learning, some may have a more or less positive impact on student academic achievement than others (Slavin, 1990). Exactly what do is known about the structures used in tracking students?
The term tracking refers to a number of different organizational arrangements within and between classes with the overall aim of facilitating instruction and promoting academic achievement (Slavin, 1987). The practice involves assigning students to instructional groups on the basis of perceived ability (Ansalone, 2000). Research suggests that certain types of tracking may create inequality between tracks than others, while specific types of grouping plans may be academically advantageous than others (Gamoran, 1992; Slavin, 1986). Gamoran suggests that the overall impact of tracking is directly related to the specific structural characteristics of a particular tracking system. Gamoran’s research goes on to say that schools with less mobility between tracks produce greater inequality and lower academic achievement. An inflexible tracking structure is likely to produce greater inequality, especially in math and verbal scores, and with overall lower math scores for all groups (Gamoran, 1992). In the next paragraphs, I explore structural characteristics and academic outcomes of structures used in tracking students in the schools.
Between-class grouping
Between-class grouping refers to a relatively common type of grouping plan, which entails assigning students to one self-contained class on the basis of perceived ability (Slavin, 1990). In spite of the literature, which refutes the claim that classes in which students are grouped according to their ability result in higher achievement gains, many public school systems within large city systems continue to organize their students for instruction based on this organizational idea (Oakes, 1985: Page, 1991). It is likely that this form of tracking enables teachers to manage more easily wide-ranging ability levels among students. Opponents of tracking are critical of this method since it has the greatest potential to set in motion a labeling process; this labeling process can facilitate teachers’ ability to identify students as dull or bright based on students’ tracked group (Oakes, 1997). Additionally, opponents of tracking suggest that this organizational idea of grouping encourages teachers to modify the content of their courses and approach to instruction according to the tracking levels of their students (Loveless, 1999).
In general, research points out that tracking encourages a differential presentation of curricula with lower-tracked students receiving a limited portion of the curricula. Such curricula are unimaginative in nature (Entwisle, 1997; Oakes, 1985; 1994, Riordan, 1997). Clearly, tracking significantly influences academic achievement when assignment to an upper level track permits students to learn more than if they are assigned to a lower level track.
Re-grouping for selected subjects~ Setting
Another type of tracking practiced in many schools within the United States assigns students to “homerooms” of diverse ability for a sizeable time of a school day and then reassigns them to two or three subjects areas which are tracked according to presumed ability (Slavin, 1987). The most commonly re-grouped subjects are math, science, reading or English. As students spend most of their scheduled school period within the same “homeroom” class, this re-grouping which is sometimes referred to as setting minimizes the stigma and labeling impact that is often associated with tracking (Provus, 1960; Morris, 1965). Additionally, it is also possible that the same student may be set in an advanced group for one subject and a slower-leveled group for another. Where this type of organizational structure is employed, it may be less likely for students to be labeled as either underachieving or gifted.
Assigning students to grouped classes is mostly based on performance in a specific subject, rather than on IQ as is the case for ability grouping (Slavin, 1987). While additional contemporary work is needed, several studies conclude that students learn more in re-grouped classes than in heterogeneous groups, especially when the re-grouping is for math classes (Provus, 1960; Koontz, 1961; Moses, 1966).
The Joplin Plan
When re-grouping is conducted exclusively for the purpose of reading instruction, it is referred to as the Joplin Plan. This plan was first developed in 1954, and it is used to assign students across grade levels to reading groups of similar ability. For example, a typical fourth-grade reading group may include some fourth-graders, high-achieving third-graders and a number of low achieving fifth-graders. A properly administered Joplin Plan reviews students’ assignments often, and re-assigns them as progress is achieved (Floyd, 1954). Like setting, it is highly possible that this plan minimizes the negative impact of stigma, which may develop from exclusive assignment of students to a low-achieving class (Oakes, 1985). This plan reduces stigmatization since classes are composed of students from several different classes. Meta-analysis of research on tracking reveals that reading classes employing the Joplin Plan achieved more than controlled classes in 11 of 14 research studies, and the remaining three classes found no difference in overall achievement between the plans utilized (Slavin, 1987).
Very often, teachers employ some sort of within-class grouping in which students are assigned to one of a number of ability-level groups in the same class. One modification of this method allows teachers to present a lesson to an entire class and then divide the class into two or three groups based on perceived ability. At this point, the instructor has the option of presenting remedial instruction to one group, and enriched instruction to another. Research favors this type of organizational idea over assigning classes randomly (Slavin & Karweit, 1985). Within-class groupings eliminate the potential for negative social and psychological effects associated with separating students into entirely different, permanent and identifiable tracks.
Clearly, at issue in the tracking debate is how to enhance equity and excellence in education and, at the same time, educate significant number of students of diverse abilities (Ansalone, 2001). De-tracking may not alone be the answer! A solution might lie in a practical accommodation, which includes some of the following elements:
It is likely that any organizational idea that segregates students into permanent and distinct groups based on presumed academic ability may encourage faculty to develop a kind of expectancy of their students. As faculty begin to expect more from some students than others, they also begin to make accommodations of curricula and alter their style of presentation in class based on perceived “slow” and “fast” learners (Oakes, 1985). Accordingly, upper- level tracks receive curricula of more imaginative nature (Entwisle et al., 1997; Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Oakes & Lipton, 1994).
In schools with tracking systems, students’ grade assessments should be conducted frequently during the term in order to figure out the possibility of moving students up or down along the tracking system. Assigning students in the tracking system should be made on the basis of students’ knowledge of specific subject areas. Assigning students to a higher track will encourage them to work harder if they are dissatisfied with their placement. It may also eliminate the potential for a student to be permanently labeled ”slow” because of his/her permanent assignment to a lower track.
Lower-tracked classes must become the focus of special attention. Administrators should carefully monitor the quality of instruction in these classes. If a between-class track structure is employed, then administrators and faculty must make a concerted effort to speak positively about the system.
Only teachers who demonstrate a positive attitude towards lower-tracked students should be selected to teach in those tracks. Regardless of track, teachers must believe that students are capable of learning. Accordingly, teachers should be provided with some reward for their services, including additional “prep” time and, or merit compensation.
Schools should offer periodic sensitivity workshops to train teachers, alerting them to their potential for creating an “expectancy factor,” which may impact students’ academic achievement. Research is available suggesting that positive teacher expectations for student academic success encourage students to achieve academically (Ansalone, 2001; Brophy & Good, 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Since teachers hold lower academic expectations for students assigned to lower-level tracks, this expectation may impact such students’ academic outcomes (Oakes, 1985). Finally, special programming and remedial support should be available to students.
Studies in support of de-tracking are conducted in schools with strong commitments to student equity and achievement (Oakes & Wells, 1998). The same schools support de-tracking efforts by upgrading support staff, increasing academic resources and providing generous supplemental budgets (Hallinan, 1994). The positive impact of de-tracking may be attributed to the elaborate support system established in schools. A system of tracking can equally be effective with favorable support systems in place.
Regardless of whether one is a proponent of tracking or de-tracking system of educating students, it is to be remembered that both operate according to prevailing cultures in schools. In general, cultures reflect schools’ socio-political agendas and teachers’ philosophy of education and perceptions of who can and cannot learn. This statement means then that institutional cultures do affect student learning.
Dr. George Ansalone is Professor of educational sociology at St Johns University, New York. Formerly, Dean of the college of Liberal Arts and Education at the Staten Island Campus of the University, he is the author of several articles and research studies dealing with the educational structure of tracking.
Ansalone, G. (2001). Schooling, tracking and inequality. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7 (1), 33-49.
Ansalone, G. (2000). Keeping on track: A reassessment of tracking in the schools. Race, Gender and Class, 7 (3), 1-25.
Ball, S. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Boaler, J. 1997. Setting, social class and the survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23 (5), 575-95.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, C. (1976). Schooling in capitalistic America. New York: Basic Books.
Brophy, J., & Good. T. (1970). Teachers’ expectations of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (3), 367-74.
Coleman, J., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. & Olson, L. 1997. Children, schools and inequality. Boulder, Colorado: West View Press.
Epstein, J.L., & MacIver, D.J. (1992). Opportunities to learn: Effects on eighth graders of curriculum offerings and instructional approaches. (Report No. 34). Baltimore: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and Heterogeneous ability grouping. Review of Educational Research 43, 163-179.
Finley, M. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 57: 233-43.
Floyd, C. (1954). Meeting children’s reading needs. Elementary School Journal, 55, 93-103.
Gamoran, Adam. (1992). Access to excellence: Assignment to honors English classes in the transition from middle to high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 185-20.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-435.
Goldberg, M. (1966). The effects of ability grouping. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hallam, S. (2000). Children’s socialization into schools: Ability grouping in primary school. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.
Hallinan, M. (1994). Track mobility in secondary schools. Social Forces 74, 999-1018.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), 344-60.
Kellam, S. (1990). The social adaptation of children in classrooms. In R. Parker & Kelam, S. (Eds). Exploring family relationships with other social contexts. (147-68). Hillsdale New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Keddie, Nell. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In M.F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control. (133-157). London, England: Collier-Macmillan.
Koontz, W.F. (1961). A study of achievement as a function of homogeneous grouping. Journal of Experimental Education, 30, 249-253.
Kulik, C., Kulik, J. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school children. A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
Kulick, C. & Kulick, J. (1992). Meat-Analytic findings of grouping progress. Gifted Children Quarterly, 36 (2), 73-77.
Loveless, T. (1994). The influence of subject matter on middle school tracking policies. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 10,147-175.
Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Washington: The Thomas Fordham Foundation.
Manlove, J., Baker, D. (1995). Local constraints and opportunity to learn. In Maureen Hallinan (Ed.), Restructuring schools. (133-53). New York: Plenum.
Morris, V. (1969). An evaluation of student achievement in a primary plan. Dissertation Abstracts, 29, 3809-A. University microfilms (69-7352).
Moses, P.J. (1966). A study of inter-class ability grouping on achievement in reading. Dissertation Abstracts 26, 4342.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping on track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Oakes, J. (1986). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 32-35.
Oakes, J. 1997. Detracking: The social construction of ability. Teacher’s College Record 98, 483-510
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1992, Feb). Detracking schools. Phi Delta Kappa 73, 448-454.
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1994) Tracking and Ability grouping. In G Keating (ed.), Access to knowledge. New York: College Board
Oakes, J. & Wells, A. (1998). Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership, 55 (38), 41-48.
Page, Reba N. (1987). Lower-Track Classes at a College-Preparatory School: A Caricature of Educational Encounters. In G. Spindler & Spindler, L. (Ed.), Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad (112-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Page, Reba N. (1991). Lower Track Classrooms: A Curricular and Cultural Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press
Pallas, A., Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., & Stluks, M. (1994). Ability group effects. Sociology of Education, 67, 24-46.
Persell, C., (1992). Differential asset conversion. Sociology of Education, 65 (3), 208-225.
Provus, M. (1960). Ability grouping in arithmetic. Elementary School Journal, 64, 387-392.
Riordan, C. (1997). Equality and achievement. New York: Longman Press.
Rosenbaum, J.E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York: Wiley.
Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schaefer, W., Olexa, C. (1971). Tracking and opportunity. Scranton, Pa: Chandler.
Schwartz, Frances. (1981). Supporting or subverting learning. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 12, 99-121.
Slavin, R.E. (1986), Best evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional revues. Educational Researcher, 15 (9), 5-11.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3), 293-336.
Slavin, R.E. & Karweit, R. (1985). Effects of whole-class and ability group instruction on math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22,351-67.
Valli, L. (1986, Apr). Tracking: Can it benefit low achieving students? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Valli, L. (1990). A curriculum of effort: Tracking students in a Catholic high school. In Page, R., & Valli, L. (Eds), Curriculum differentiation: Interpretive studies in secondary schools ( 45-65). Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How untracking can save America’s schools. New York: The New Press.
Willis, P. (1981). Learning to Labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
© Radical Pedagogy