This document provides an overview of ability grouping and tracking in education. It discusses the origins of tracking in response to increasing student diversity in the early 20th century. Students were initially sorted into academic, general, and vocational tracks in high school. Modern tracking involves grouping students by ability within subjects like math and English. Research shows tracking can negatively impact the achievement of lower-tracked students by providing them weaker instruction, while higher-tracked students benefit from more rigorous curricula and experienced teachers. The debate around tracking centers on whether it prepares students for their futures or serves to reproduce the social hierarchy.

1. WEEK 2:
TRACKING & ABILITY GROUPING
Melanie Tannenbaum, M.A.
Sociology 463/663
Spring 2015

2. This Week: Ability Grouping
• Origins
• Theoretical Perspectives
• Inputs
• Decisions
• Rationale
• Debate

3. The Origins of Tracking
• Response to the influx of immigrant children into
America’s schools in the early 20th century.
• Newly diverse student population.
• School officials thought it “necessary” to sort children into
different “tracks” based on ability or past performance.

4. The Origins of Tracking
“Our city schools will soon be forced to give up the exceedingly
democratic idea that all are equal, and our society devoid of
classes…and to begin a specialization of educational effort
along many lines.”
- Ellwood P. Cubberley, school reformer, 1909

5. Early Tracking
• Early: Junior High/HS students assigned to 1 of 3 tracks:
• Academic: Groomed for college
• General
• Vocational: Prepared to enter trades like plumbing or
secretarial work.

6. Early Tracking
• Early: Junior High/HS students assigned to 1 of 3 tracks:
• Academic: Groomed for college
• General
• Vocational: Prepared to enter trades like plumbing or
secretarial work.
Pretty rare today.

7. Transition
• Early 1970s: Policymakers & educators feared America was in
danger of losing its competitive edge, began insisting all
students have access to rigorous academics.
!
• States passed minimum graduation standards requiring
courses in core subjects (English, math, social studies, science).

8. Modern Tracking
• Grouping students by ability within subjects.
• Advanced, regular, or basic based on past performance.
• Advanced: Pre-Calculus as juniors, Calculus as seniors.
• Basic: Algebra II as juniors, Geometry as seniors.
• Creation & growth of AP courses/tracks/programs.

9. Modern Tracking

10. Prevalence
• 1993 survey of 912 high schools
• 86% of high schools offered tracked courses.
• 2000 survey of all 174 public high schools in Maryland
• 66% of HS used tracking in the 4 core subject areas.
• 13% didn’t track students in any of the core subjects.
• All 31 of the low-poverty, low-minority schools used
tracking, while only 36% of the 25 high-poverty,
high-minority schools did.

11. Tracking Starts Young

12. Tracking:
Organizational Mechanisms
• Curriculum
• Available Tracks/Programs
• Available Faculty
• Parental Involvement
• Academic & Career Counseling

13. Tracking: Questions
• What’s the reason for tracking?
• Why are tracking decisions important?
• What are the inputs and outputs?
• At the individual & organizational levels?
• What does the notion of “matching” mean?

14. THE TWO PERSPECTIVES
ON TRACKING

15. Perspective #1:
Human Capital Theory
• Functionalist
• Tracking prepares students for the “real world”
• Investing in education allows students to increase their
own human capital, which translates into market value
and status
• Objective assessments of talent & ability serve as
important input into educational decisions
• Tracking is meritocratic — anyone can do well and earn a
spot in the “higher” tracks!

16. Perspective #2:
Conflict Theory
• Tracking reproduces the hierarchical social order
• Societal status (of parents) is an important part of
tracking decisions
• Group Membership (Social Class)
• Cultural Capital
• Credentials

17. TRACKING:
WHAT ARE THE INPUTS?

18. Input #1: Students
• Self-Confidence
• Career Plans (if any)
• Educational Ambition
• Social Conformity & Peer Pressure
• Parental Pressure (either way)
• Role Models

19. Input #2: Parents
• “Hopes and Dreams”
• Career plans for their children
• Involvement/“Active Management”
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into & knowledge of their children’s math
placements

20. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

21. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

22. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

23. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

24. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

25. Input #2: Parents
• Elizabeth Useem (1992)
• Interviewed mothers of middle school students about
their input into/knowledge of math placements

26. Input #3: Counselors/Teachers
• Concern for Student
• Courses shouldn’t be too hard or too easy
• Course load should be realistic
• Naive/implicit theories of intelligence
• Expectations for Student
• Stereotypes
• Ethnic/Racial
• Gender

27. Input #4: School
• School Goals & Policy
• Available Resources
• Size & specialization of faculty
• Some tracks cost more money than others
• Vocational vs. Academic
• Size of Student Body
• Different courses can only be offered if there’s a critical mass
• Counseling
• Effectiveness, # of counselors

28. HOW ARE TRACKING
DECISIONS MADE?

29. Oakes & Guiton (1995)
• It’s a mess.
• Influences of…
• Ability
• Ethnic/racial group membership (Stereotypes)
• Different offerings at the school/school structure
• “School culture”
• School goals/mission

31. Oakes & Guiton (1995)

32. Oakes & Guiton (1995)

33. Oakes & Guiton (1995)

34. Oakes & Guiton (1995)

35. TRACKING:
RATIONALES & PROGRESS

36. What is the rationale?
• 1. Facilitate Instruction
• 2. Manage Student Behavior
• 3. Maximize Achievement
!
• Is #3 really happening?

37. Opinions
• Teachers say that it facilitates instruction by making it
easier to gear lessons to the ability level of the whole class.
!
• Parents of high-performing students like tracking because
students assigned to high-ability groups make greater
gains in achievement.

38. Curriculum Differentiation
• Tracking
• Follow defined sequence of courses that is deemed appropriate
for the student’s ability level
• Attend courses with and without students in other tracks
• Ability Grouping
• Attend classes/courses only with students who are at the same
achievement level as you are
• Receive instruction that is deemed appropriate for your ability
level with regard to content and delivery
• Similar effects on achievement!

39. Hallinan & Kubitschek (1999)
• Examine difference in test scores between ability grouped
and non-grouped students
• Make sure that differences between grouped and non-
grouped students cannot be explained by…
• Prior achievement
• Other variables (race, SES…)

40. Hallinan & Kubitschek (1999)
• Higher tracks/ability groups have higher-achieving
students before instruction even begins.
!
• Higher scores might be the result of selection effects, not
the result of tracking or teaching methods.

41. Non-Ability Grouped Students
Let’s say this is the achievement distribution of students
at the end of the 10th grade.
Mean

42. Non-Ability Grouped Students
Let’s say this is the achievement distribution of students
at the end of the 10th grade.
Mean
= Grand Mean

43. Ability Grouped Students
Let’s say this is the achievement distribution of students
at the end of the 10th grade.
Mean
Middle
Mean
High
Mean
Low

44. Ability Grouped Students
Let’s say this is the achievement distribution of students
at the end of the 10th grade.
Mean
Middle
= Grand Mean
Mean
High
Mean
Low

45. Mean
Middle
Mean
High
Mean
Low
Mean
Non-Grouped
Grouped

46. Grand
Mean
Grand
Mean
Non-Grouped
Grouped

47. Grand
Mean
Grand
Mean
Only some students (those in the highest track) show better
results with ability grouping than non-ability grouping.

48. Grand
Mean
Grand
Mean
On average, students in non-ability grouped systems typically
outperform students in ability grouped systems.

49. Problems
• Students assigned to low-ability groups score lower on
standardized tests than if they had been placed in mixed-
ability or high-ability groups.
!
• Tracking creates greater learning opportunities for high-
performing students at the expense of their lower-performing
peers.
!
• Students in lower tracks have weaker teachers, unchallenging
curriculums, few academic role models, and low social status.

50. Oakes (1985)
• Some schools promote internal
segregation by disproportionately
assigning minority students to
lower tracks.
!
• Tracking is an elitist practice
that perpetuates the status quo by
giving students from privileged
families greater access to elite
colleges and high-income careers.

51. Why does tracking influence
achievement?
• Instruction
• Quantity of material
• Quality of material
• Complexity
• Challenge Level
• Speed of delivery
• Quality & experience of teachers

52. Why does tracking influence
achievement?
• Institution
• School culture
• Interpersonal
• Teacher expectations
• Availability of role models
• Peer influences
• Social comparison
• Classroom composition

53. Why?
• Teacher Investment
• Mutual Cooperation
• Students teaching students
• Opportunities for upward and downward comparisons
• What do students believe about the accuracies of
their ability groupings?

54. Why is it still around?
• Easier to Teach
• It’s hard to “teach to the middle” in detracked classes.
• Logistics
• Would have to reallocate teachers/administrators, modify
curriculums, and provide professional training.
• Very expensive in terms of $$ and time.
• Parents
• Parents of high-ability kids really like tracking.
• These are the parents with the most resources & influence.

55. Benbow & Stanley (1996)
• Extreme egalitarianism = Pitting equity against excellence
• De-tracking is unfair to the most talented students
• Individual differences do exist!
• Low levels of academic achievement in the US
• International comparisons
• Generation gap
• The present generation is less educated than previous
generations
• “It only takes one Edison to invent the light bulb.”

56. Questions
• Is there an inequality in the types of teachers hired for each
track? Do “advanced” classes get better/more qualified
teachers because those classes are more desirable?
!
• Do you think it’s possible to divide students without them
knowing if tracks aren’t publicly labeled? Or will students
always figure it out?
!
• Do you think there is value in “tracking” students based on
how they learn best?

57. Questions
• The Marsh reading discusses the effects of being in a
“gifted” program on self-concept. What do you think is
more important - academic achievement or high self-
concept?
!
• We know that peers can “push” people in good (or bad)
academic directions. Do you think that being in a lower
track can “push” bad students to be even worse, if they’re
surrounded by less academic peers?