For more than a half-century, educational sociologists have debated the relative impact and effectiveness of tracking, the separation of students by ability and curriculum. While a good deal of the research literature has found tracking to be associated with negative student outcomes, this educational structure continues to remain pervasive in American education. This article attempts to explore the mechanisms that account for its popularity. By employing a cross-cultural perspective between the US, where tracking is pervasive and Japan, where tracking is virtually non-existent in the elementary schools, this article attempts to demonstrate that the idea of tracking is deeply imbedded in cultural assumptions about the nature and meaning of intelligence, ability and equity. By examining these prevailing assumptions, we begin to understand why schools continue to provide differentiated education to students, which often results in denying access to knowledge and the opportunity to learn to so many children.
For more than a half-century, educational sociologists have debated the relative impact and effectiveness of tracking, the separation of students by ability and curriculum. While a good deal of the research literature has found tracking to be associated with negative student outcomes, this educational structure continues to remain pervasive in American education. This article attempts to explore the mechanisms that account for its popularity. By employing a cross-cultural perspective between the US, where tracking is pervasive and Japan, where tracking is virtually non-existent in the elementary schools, this article attempts to demonstrate that the idea of tracking is deeply imbedded in cultural assumptions about the nature and meaning of intelligence, ability and equity. By examining these prevailing assumptions, we begin to understand why schools continue to provide differentiated education to students, which often results in denying access to knowledge and the opportunity to learn to so many children.
Clearly, the experience of schooling differs for each child and a student’s track level is perhaps the single best predictor of academic achievement [Ansalone, 2003: Wells & Crain, 1992]. Tracking impacts on every aspect of a student’s educational experience. It influences curriculum content and the manner in which it is presented. Students in low-track classes more often receive a watered down curriculum, which is often presented in a less imaginative manner [Goodlad, 1984; Pallas, 1994]. These students are also more often denied access to higher-level courses, which are ultimately required for admission to four-year colleges and employment in high-level careers [Mc Knight, 1987; Oakes, 1985]. Students in lower tracks are more often presented with learning strategies that are passive. Rather than interacting with other students or the instructor, they often work alone and spend an appreciable portion of the day completing worksheets [Hallinan, 1995; Oakes, 1990]. By contrast, learning strategies, which help to develop critical thinking skills, are more often typical part of the upper track educational experience. Regretfully, this type of lower track curriculum may make knowledge less accessible to children who have some degree of difficulty in school. Additionally, considerable research suggests that less-academically oriented students do not necessarily respond well to the typical talk and chalk, drill and skill curriculum which is usually a prime ingredient of a lower track classroom [Dunn& Dunn, 1994].
Assignment to a lower track may also influence the expectations that teachers hold for their students. Initially, what teachers know about their students often comes from the student’s track assignment and teachers generally hold lower expectations for lower track students [Keddie, 1971; Richardson, 1989; Wheelock, 1992]. These expectations are quickly communicated to the students via a variety of gestures and cues, which over time take a toll on student self-concept and academic achievement. A number of observational studies help us to understand exactly how this expectancy factor takes place [Rist, 1970; Brophy & Good, 1970]. In time, the ability grouping itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy since students assigned to different tracks are taught differently and provided with less challenging course content which in turn affects how much and what they learn. [ Eder, 1981; Felmlee & Eder, 1983]. Instruction in the lower track instruction also differs from that provided to upper track students since teachers who are likely to be assigned to lower track students are the least experienced, often lack the proper teaching credentials and have the lowest level of preparation in the subject [Kozol, 1991; Oakes, 1990]. Ironically, underachieving students are placed in lower tracks presumably because they have been identified as less likely to succeed, yet, research has uncovered that the lower track rarely provides them with the resources needed to accomplish this end.
Classification in terms of track assignments is a powerful force in determining how children perceive themselves and it is also likely that tracking may impact on a student’s self-concept. Tracks can create a self-fulfilling prophesy of behavior and belief which can help define the type of person that students believe themselves to be. Considerable research reports negative consequences for the self-concept of students in lower tracks [Rosenbaum 1980; Alexander & McDill, 1976; Oakes, 1985].
It is also possible that assignment to a lower track may contribute to hostility and misconduct on the part of lower track students toward school. If lower track students redefine their self-concept as a function of track position, it is likely that this will lead to dissatisfaction with the school and the entire educational experience. This dissatisfaction may take the form of serious misconduct and rule breaking [Ansalone, 2003; Goodlad, 1984]. Compounding the problem, Oakes [1985] has uncovered that many schools assign students who misbehave or have a history of problems to a low track. This may account for the high volume of misconduct in low tracks. In turn, teachers who are confronted with a large number of students with a history of discipline problems may create classroom activities, which control and discipline their students rather than encourage them to learn independently or develop critical thinking skills. In this way, assignment to lower tracks denies these students an equal opportunity to learn. Yet another outcome of track structure may be friendship patterns.
Heynes finds that one advantage of participating in an upper rack may be the opportunity to associate with economically advantaged peers [Heynes, 1974]. Research suggests that little interaction takes place between lower and upper track students [Alexander & McDill, 1976]. Accordingly it is not unreasonable to suggest that tracking restricts friendship patterns which in turn impacts on the cultural and social currency available to lower track students
By permitting educators to place students in public categories which often become hierarchal and which reflect the value judgments that educators have made about their academic potential, lower tracks may impact negatively on the learning potential and self-concept of lower track students. This negative impact on academic achievement and affective development takes place slowly and over many years. In time, the gap in academic achievement between lower and upper tracks not only increases but also becomes the rationale for the continued use of the tracking. Additionally, since many children of disadvantaged families are found disproportionately in lower tracks, it also results in the separation of students along racial and socio-economic lines, limits the social and cultural capital of these students and perpetuates the existing social structure [Hallinan, 1995; Persell, 1992]. But the question remains, if tracking results in such negative outcomes for student achievement and affective development, why does it remain a common managerial strategy in American schools? The answer may be found in examining some deeply embedded cultural beliefs in American society relative to the nature of ability and equity .
American conceptions of ability and equity, which date back to the turn of the century, often confound attempts to detrack the schools. A perversion of the biological theories of Darwin enabled Americans to scientifically categorize disadvantaged immigrant groups as socially and morally inferior. Their poverty and lack of success in the educational arena could be rationalized by science. Today, Americans continue to hold strong assumptions about student differences and believe that intellectual aptitude, which also includes school success, is a product of ability and that ability is relatively fixed and heritable [Oakes, 1986, 1990; Welner, 1999; Wells & Oakes, 1997]. Accordingly, this belief has laid a solid foundation for the assumption among contemporary Americans that some children can more easily achieve academic success. Additionally, since many Americans believe that most children differ in their ability to learn, differentiated schooling or tracking according to ability would seem to provide both excellence and equity in schooling. Public schools are looked upon as arenas in which immigrants and minorities are provided with the opportunity to learn technical job- related skills and learn to accept mainstream values required in everyday interaction. Schooling which originally Americanized the immigrant masses now continues to provide the latent functions of education- obedience, docility, punctionality and sobriety. Many are still of the belief that tracking provides an excellent way to prepare less-able students for their position as workers in the job market while, enabling children of advantaged families to prepare for careers in the professional world. However, while considered fair and excellent, this well-intentioned educational structure has historically put in place a form of differentiated learning experience which has led to elitism in education and the notion that some children by way of birthright deserve more attention and better resources (Oakes, 1986). In turn, this has restricted access to education and opportunity- to- learn for children of minority and disadvantaged families. A historical context might help us to understand why academics often respond ambivalently to the negative research findings associated with tracking.
The practice of tracking students may be traced to the middle of the nineteenth century when the first segregation by ability, the Harris Plan, was instituted in the public schools of St. Louis, Missouri [Pulliam, 1999]. Prior to this time, schooling in America was primarily tutorial, and the traditional one room rural schoolhouse provided instruction in the 3 R’s. The earliest tracking systems emerged within urban centers as attempts to Americanize and socialize the less desirable masses- the increasing numbers of poor blacks arriving from the South and newly arriving immigrant groups. However, as scores of immigrants made America their new home, a more efficient technique was needed to handle the influx of children into the schools. As thousands of poor children flooded American urban areas, the urban school with its common curriculum was soon replaced by factory-like structures where differentiated schooling could appropriately socialize the various groups of students into work roles appropriate to their class standing (Chapman, 1988). At about the same time, school administrators were discovering that many of the new children could not make it through the system. Claims of “retardation” became common and one researcher (Ayres, 1909) claimed that about a third of the new school population was seriously retarded. This pressure for reform confirmed the need for a plan, which sorted children into classes for those perceived to be slow, bright or deficient. While noble in concept, the new plan, based on tracking by perceived ability, was complicated by the need for an instrument to efficiently allocate the students into different groups. This need was soon filled by the discovery of intelligence in Europe and America.
In 1904, the Frenchman, Alfred Binet developed a scale which he believed was capable of measuring the intelligence of elementary school children in the schools of Paris. His goal was to identify the subnormal and segregate them into separate classes. Lewis Terman, a hard-fast social Darwinist, quickly transported the test to the United Sates. Terman considered the poor blacks and immigrant children who composed the new school population, to be social misfits who impinged on the achievement of other children. While they were incapable of learning, he sought to make them efficient workers and envisioned the new intelligence test as a scientific instrument that could sort them into vocational tracks [Chapman, 1988]. In time, this new IQ test became the final step in a tracking process, which enabled schools to scientifically identify ability levels and sort students accordingly. The new exam served well the belief that schools should sort students so that some could be taught to work with their hands while others would use their minds. A curriculum composed of the same abstract knowledge would not be suited for all students but providing each ability level with the tools to obtain a trade or a profession was considered an equitable outcome of schooling.
As tracking increased in popularity, the common curriculum was soon replaced with a multi-layered or parallel system. The specifics of each plan differed by city. In Cambridge, the superintendent of schools developed a two- track plan and students were divided into average and gifted groups (Chapman, 1988). These plans often provided a classical track for the gifted in order to prepare these students for professional careers corresponding to their position in the social structure and a vocational track which taught some trade or skill to average students. However, the frankness by which students were sorted into curriculum tracks based on race, class and ethnicity raised concerns about the openness of the American educational system (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). The idea of selecting children for different tracks according to“ability” soon became institutionalized in American education. To this day, attempts to unify or detrack the curriculum are met with distrust. It is likely that this prevailing belief is still prevalent among today’s educational practitioners and helps to explain the pervasiveness of tracking in American schools. By comparison, tracking of any kind is virtually absent from the elementary and middle schools of Japan. Let us examine the perceptions of ability and equity in Japan to determine if they are similar to those in the US. But first let us take a brief look at the system of compulsorily education in Japan.
Education in Japan is compulsory for children between the ages of 6 and 15, which generally consists of elementary and middle school. Following the world war, Japan adopted a 6-3-3-4 model of education with six years of elementary, three years of middle and high school and four years of university study. In contrast to the American educational system, tracking and within-class groupings are virtually non-existent on the elementary and middle school level. At this level, the Japanese attempt to provide equal educational opportunities for all children. All students are considered equally capable but differently motivated. Because of this underlying belief which is universally accepted among teachers, Japanese instructors are taught to place strong emphasis on individual effort and hard work. Differences in ability are discounted and it is the teacher who assumes responsibility for motivating students. Poor academic achievement is generally attributed to a lack of effort rather than a lack of ability [Stevenson & Stinger, 1992].
Today, the Monbusho or Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, oversees a uniform national curriculum and all elementary and middle schools are required to offer the same curriculum in each of the three academic divisional areas. The first division provides training in general academics, which includes language, social studies, math/ science and music/art. A second area provides training in public manners; courtesy and discipline. Finally, a third area includes social activities, and athletics. Tracking is prohibited in any of these areas [Lewis, 1995]. Additionally, since inclusion represents the basic Japanese ideal, special programs that enable children to develop at different rates are not permitted. Neither is any effort made to identify above or below average children and place them in special classes. Slow children are not held back since the shame is considered to be too great. Clearly, the Japanese curriculum is influenced by their interesting perceptions of ability.
While the Japanese acknowledge that differences in ability between children do exist, differential success is considered to be a function of differential effort. The idea that ability is innate is not acceptable and all students at the elementary and middle level are presented with a uniform curriculum. This unique egalitarian philosophy can be traced back, in part, to the educational policies of the Meiji government who ruled Japan from 1868 to1912. The Meji attempted to build a strong nation state rather than develop the individual talents of its citizens. Clearly, it helped to mold the Japanese “situation-centered way of life” which places emphasis on an individual’s “appropriate place among his fellowman rather than individual accomplishments” (Hurh, 1997). One may uncover the same type of Japanese collectivism, rather than individualism, portrayed in art. Focus is rarely placed on the individual but on one’s place in the scheme of things. Human forms are rarely treated as principle subjects and if they are, they are no more than dots on the canvass or so heavily clothed that their bodies cannot be seen ( Hsu, 1970). Clearly, these underlying assumptions about the role of the individual in society have produced a mind set in this society which frowns on educational differentiation at this level. The Meiji made education a central issue of their administration and considered equal access as the way to create a united nation rather than a means of enhancing individual potential [Dore & Sako, 1991]. Accordingly, they believed that differences in ability were not heritable and that they could be explained by differences in student’s motivation. Since Japan’s resources were limited, all were encouraged to exert as much individual effort as possible in school in order to advance the national cause [Goodman, 1990].
Many of these basic educational beliefs relative to individual effort and achievement remain in effect to this day. Clearly, this perception stems, in part, from the belief among Japanese that resources on their island nation are limited. To identify and label students as slow or underachieving at an early age would impact negatively on human resource potential and unnecessarily harm the welfare of the nation. Accordingly, the Japanese prefer to discuss Shujunkudo or the difference in how a student masters knowledge. Therefore, they have been socialized to believe that learning at this age results from effort, persistence and family support rather than from ability ( Shimizu, 1999). The Japanese believe that all students are born with equal ability and are less concerned with any discussion of Noryokus or heritable ability differences. Clearly, they adhere to the belief that learning is the result of effort and learning difficult subjects is a cumulative effort [Goodman, 1990]. Interestingly, Fukaya found that students and parents within one Japanese school generally attributed “not listening” or “not studying” as the reason for poor academic achievement. Teachers responded similarly and placed considerable emphasis on individual student effort rather than innate ability [Fukaya, 1983]. Teachers believe that all students can be motivated and that past underachievement does not relegate a student to poor academic achievement in the future. To quote one teacher “ ….as far as innate ability goes, I can’t say that it is not there but I can say that it does not matter”[White, 1987].
The Japanese conceptions of ability and equity which are impacted by history and the concern for limited human resources also impact on teaching style. Unlike the United States, Japanese elementary school teachers teach to the whole class. They are trained to appreciate academic diversity in the classroom since they believe learning with groups of mixed ability encourages the development of special interpersonal and interactive skills, since the world is composed of many different people [Goodman, 1990]. Teachers rely on all students to generate ideas and offer comments on the ideas of others. Teachers are taught to consider the mistakes of some as an opportunity for other students to explain why the response is incorrect. A mistake is treated as an opportunity for a new learning experience and not looked upon as a sign of permanent weakness . By contrast in the US, a culture that places greater emphasis on innate ability, mistakes are viewed as signs of stupidity [Stevenson & Stigler, 1992]. Some research has also uncovered that the Japanese consider ability grouping to be discriminatory since it results in the differential treatment of students at a time when they should be provided with a full array of educational experiences. Additionally, it limits the range of personal experiences and deprives students of the chance to learn from one another [Fuchigami, 1986]. In sharp contrast to the US, compulsory education in Japan is based on the philosophy that all children have equal learning potential and that all children deserve the vast variety of learning experiences necessary for the development of the whole person. Clearly, this teaching and learning philosophy flows from their underlying conceptions of equity and ability.
More recently in the US, educational reform is a national policy and recent legislation (NCLB) can go far in encouraging States to move in the direction of equity and excellence. But legislation and rhetoric alone are not sufficient to effect change in this critical area. If all children are to succeed, it will be necessary for educators to question and examine the assumptions that underscore the status quo of American schools. This research has focused on one practice in American schooling, tracking, and how underlying assumptions about the nature of ability and equity have permitted it to flourish in the schools. Recent research has associated tracking with negative outcomes for students, especially those from disadvantaged homes. Certainly, one would assume that the most obvious reason to track students is to promote academic achievement on all levels; however the contemporary research fails to support this assumption. But not only is tracking pervasive in American schooling; it seems to exist with the blessings of teachers, administrators and parents. Attempts to eliminate or modify it have been met with considerable resistance. Clearly, a gap exists between everyday practice in schools and educational research. This study attempts to shed light on the reason for this gap by examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts of the society.
In the US, this practice is deeply imbedded in the ideological and cultural assumptions relative to the nature of ability, intelligence and equity. These assumptions, developed during a unique historical period of our country’s history, assume that educational differentiation for students of diverse ability could best serve their needs. These socio-cultural assumptions also nicely complement the spirit of American individualism. However, inherent in this belief is the assumption that all students are not capable of learning. Regretfully, many of these assumptions remain and color our contemporary philosophy of education
In sharp contrast to the United States, Japan, represents a relatively homogeneous society only recently impacted by significant immigration. Historically, it has remained a class-based society but the push for equality has been less intense. Educational differentiation- tracking on the elementary and middle school are virtually non-existent. In part, this is also tied to underlying socio-cultural assumptions that have developed within Japanese society. Failure to address these assumptions will lead to the continued differentiated schooling and the denial of access to educational resources and the opportunity to learn for all children
The practice of Tracking is pervasive in many countries and it will continue to flourish as long as key stakeholders in the process are convinced of its effectiveness. This practice seems to be grounded in the overall belief that by virtue of birth status some deserve innovative teaching methodologies and better resources while others do not.. Consideration of the historical and socio-cultural roots of a society may provide insights into underlying rationales for the existence of various educational policies and structures. While it is also likely that teaching to the whole class may not necessarily work in the US due to large class sizes and the diverse student populations, educational practitioners must also investigate new teaching methodologies that might eliminate many of the pitfalls of tracking or at least modify some of its negative effects. Some research has reported considerable success with the application of modality theory- learning styles and cooperative education. Certainly, if this is not possible teachers must be made aware of the problems associated with tracking and encouraged to develop new classroom strategies to counter its negative effects. Practitioners must also explore school policy, community customs and the various perceptions relative to student ability and equity if they are ever to understand how and why educational structures and policies remain in place. Armed with this knowledge, they may begin to entertain the possibility of CHANGE.
Alexander, K. and E. McDill. (1976). Selection and allocation within schools. American Sociological review, 41, 936-80.
Ansalone, G. ( 2003 ). Poverty, tracking and the social construction of failure. Journal of Children and Poverty vol.9, no.1, 3-21.
Ansalone, G. (2004). Teachers’ Perceptions of the educational structure of tracking. Education 125, (2), 249-59.
Ayres, L. (1909). Laggards in schools. New York: Charaties Publication Committee.
Bowles, C. Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capatiliatic American. New York: Basic Books.
Chapman, P. ( 1988). Schools as sorters.New York: New York University Press.
Brophy, J. & T. Good. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (5), 365-74.
Chapman, P. (1988). Schools as sorters. New York: New York University Press.
Dore, R. & M. Sako. (1991). How the Japanese learn to work. London: Rutledge Press.
Dunn, R. & K. Dunn. & J. Perrin. (1994). Teaching children through their individual learning styles. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Eder, D. (1981). Ability-grouping as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sociology of Education, 54, 151-62.
Felmee, D. & D. Eder. (1983). Contextual effects in the classroom. Sociology of Education, 56, 77-78.
Fuchigami, K. ( 1986). A study of personal influences on decision making. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 347-50.
Fukuya, A. (1983). Children who isolate themselves. Tokyo: Nihou Kyokai.
George, P. (1993). Whats the truth about tracking . In J. Bellanca and E. Schwartz eds. The Challenge of Detracking. Pallantine, Il: Skylight Publishers
Goodlad, J. ( 1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
Goodman, R. (1990). Japan’s international youth. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Hallinan, M. (1995). Tracking and detracking practices. In Cookson and Sheider eds. Transforming Schools, 38-55. Garland Press.
Heynes, B. (1974). Social selection and stratification within schools. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1434-51.
Hurh, W. (1997). Personality in Cultureand Society. Dubuke, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt
Hsu, F. (1970). Passages to differences. Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii
Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge in M. Young ed. Knowledge and control, London: Butler and Tanner.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Perennial.
Lewis, C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds. Cambridge University Press: McKnight Co.
McKnight. (1987). The underachieving curriculum. Champaigne, Il: Stipes.
Oakes, J. ( 1985). Keeping Track. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J. (1986). Tracking inequality and the rhetoric of reform Journal of Education, 168 (1), 60-80.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities. Rand Corporation: Santa Monica: California.
Pallas, A. (1994). Ability group effects. Sociology of Education, 67, 27-46.
Persell, C. (1977). Education and inequality. New York: Free Press.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-451.
Pulliam, J. (1999). History of education in America. New York: Prentice Hall.
Rosenbaum, J. (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of Research in Education, 8, 361-401.
Richardson, V. (1989). School children at risk. New York: Falmer press.
Shimizu, H. (1999). Individual differences and the Japanese educational system. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. US Dept of Eduaction. ED1.302, Chapter 3.
Stevenson, H and J. Stinger. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from the Japanese. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wells, A. and J. Oakes. (1998). Tracking, detracking and the politics of educational reform in C. Torres editor. Emerging issues in the sociology of education, pp.158-180 Albany, NY: Suny Press
Wells, A. and R. Crain. (1992). Do parents choose school quality or school status. Sociology of Education, 65 (1), 616-18.
Welner, K. (1999). They retard what they cannot repel. Journal of Negro Education, 68(2), 200-212.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks. New York: Norton Press.
White, M. (1987). The Japanese educational challenge. New York: Free Press.
© Radical Pedagogy