Ability grouping
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Ability_grouping".

Tracking (also called ability grouping or streaming) is the practice, in education, of placing students into different groups within a school, based on academic abilities¹. For years, schools in the United States and Great Britain have used tracking (called streaming in Great Britain) as a way of dividing students into different “tracks” to facilitate learning. Though the terms “tracking” and “ability grouping” are often used interchangeably, Gamoran (1992) differentiates between the two². He uses the term “tracking” to describe the manner by which students are separated into groups for all academic subjects, but “ability grouping,” on the other hand, is the within-class separation of students into groups, based on academic ability. High ability groups are often assigned special work that is more advanced than that of the other students in the class.

Track Assignment

The ways by which students are assigned to tracks and the amount of fluidity within the tracking system varies by school. While some schools assign students to a particular track and do not allow for mobility between tracks, other schools allow students to be placed into an advanced class for one subject and a lower-ranking class for another.³ The types of tracks have also changed over the years. Traditionally, there were academic, general, and vocational tracks, but many schools now base track levels on course difficulty, with tracks such as basic, honors, or college-prep.⁴ Although, in theory, track assignment is based on academic ability, other factors often influence placement. Non-academic factors such as schedule conflicts often affect students’ track assignments. Secondary schools, in general, tend to assign students to high tracks based on objective criteria, while low-track students are often placed using more-arbitrary measures. In some cases, placement is based entirely on student decision.⁴

Advantages of Tracking

Proponents of tracking say that it has several important strengths. A major advantage of tracking is that it allows teachers to better direct lessons toward the specific ability level of the students in each class.¹

Another positive aspect of tracking is that since it separates students by ability, students’ work is only compared to that of similar-ability peers, preventing a possible lowering of their self-esteem that could result from comparisons with the work of higher ability students, or inflating the egos of the high-ability students when compared to low-ability, same-age students. Since high self-esteem is correlated with high academic achievement, tracking should, theoretically, promote academic success for low-ability students.¹

Supporters of tracking also note that it allows for higher achievement of high-ability students⁵. Kulik and Kulik (1992) found that high-ability students in tracked classes achieved more highly than similar-ability students in non-tracked classes. ⁵ In another study, Argys, Rees, and Brewer (1996) found that high-track students’ achievement dropped when lower-ability students were integrated into the same class⁶. Both of these studies suggest that tracking is beneficial to high-track students. Tracking can also encourage low-ability students to participate in class since tracking separates them from intimidation of the high-ability students. ³ Some supporters of tracking also view tracking as an effective means of allocation since it helps direct students into specific areas of the labor market.¹

Criticism

Despite the positive aspects of tracking, many scholars have noted limitations of the system. Tracking often does not work as effectively as it should because of the composition of the tracks. In practice, tracks are generally not as homogeneous as they could be (although they are more homogenous than a non-tracking system, which randomly assigns students to classrooms), so some of the potential benefits can not be fully exploited.⁴ Even when tracks initially are nearly homogeneous in students’ academic abilities, heterogeneity can develop over time, since students learn at different rates. Some systems reevaluate all students periodically to keep students of comparable ability together as they progress.

Low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students from socioeconomically successful groups.⁷ Jeannie Oakes theorizes that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities.⁸ In addition to the unequal placement of students into tracks, there is evidence to support the assertion that the appointment of teachers to classes is disproportionate. The most-experienced, highest-status teachers are often assigned to teach high-track classes, whereas less-experienced teachers are usually assigned to low-track classes. ⁹ Teachers of the high-track courses were found to be more enthusiastic in teaching, better at providing explanations, and more organized than teachers of low-track courses. ⁸

Scholars have also found that curricula often vary widely among tracks, as might be expected.¹ Lessons taught in low-track classes often lack the engagement and comprehensiveness of the high-track lessons, reflecting their more remedial nature. This can put low-track students at a disadvantage for college acceptance because they often do not gain the knowledge and skills of the upper-track students, presuming they could and would if not taught under a tracked system. Oakes (1985) found that in high-track classes, teachers often used course materials and taught concepts which required extensive critical-thinking skills, whereas teachers in low-track classes tended to draw heavily from workbooks and rarely assign work that required critical thinking. ¹⁰ In general, curricula of high-track courses are much more intensive and in-depth than those of low-track courses, as would be expected. ¹¹

Some studies suggest that tracking can influence students’ peer groups and attitudes regarding other students. Gamoran’s study (1992) shows that students are more likely to form friendships with other students in the same tracks than students outside of their tracks.¹² Since low-class and minority students are overrepresented in low tracks with Whites and Asians generally dominating high tracks, interaction among these groups can be discouraged by tracking. ¹³

Tracking can also result in a stigmatization of low-track students. ⁴ In some cases, this stigmatization is thought to have a negative impact on students’ academic performance and to influence students’ attitudes.¹²⁴ In one study, it was found that, among low-achieving students, students in tracked classes were more likely than students in non-tracked classes to believe that “their fate was out of their hands.” ¹⁴

Proposed Reforms to the Tracking System

Maureen Hallinan offers many suggestions for reforming the tracking system and counterbalancing its perceived negative consequences.⁴ Although tracking can segregate students by race and socioeconomic status, she says that, by ensuring that students are engaged in integrated settings during the school day, some of the negative effects of the segregation could be avoided. Some studies suggest that low-track students often have slower academic growth than high-track students, but Hallinan says that providing more-engaging lessons in class, altering assumptions about students, and raising requirements for students’ performance could help. In order to prevent stigmatization of low-track students, Hallinan suggests that schools challenge low-track students to achieve highly and should offer public rewards for gains in academic achievement.⁴

References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} Ansalone, George (2003). "Poverty, Tracking, and the Social Construction of Failure: International Perspectives on Tracking". Journal of Children & Poverty 9 (1). 
2. ^ Gamoran, Adam (1992). "Is Ability Grouping Equitable?". Educational Leadership 50 (2). 
3. ^ ^{a b} Slavin, Robert E. (1990). "Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis". Review of Educational Research 60 (3): 471–499. 
4. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Hallinan, Maureen (1994). "Tracking: From Theory to Practice". Sociology of Education 67 (2): 79–84. doi:10.2307/2112697. 
5. ^ ^{a b} Kulik, James A.; Chen-Lin C. Kulik (1992). "Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs". Gifted Children Quarterly 36 (2): 73–77. doi:10.1177/001698629203600204. 
6. ^ Argys, L. M.; Rees, D. I., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). "Detracking America's Schools: Equity at Zero Cost?". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 (4): 623–645. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199623)15:4<623::AID-PAM7>3.0.CO;2-J. 
7. ^ Hyland, N. (2006). "Detracking in the Social Studies: A Path to a More Democratic Education?". Theory Into Practice 45 (1): 64–71. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4501_9. 
8. ^ ^{a b} Oakes, Jeannie (1987). Tracking in Secondary Schools: A Contextual Perspective, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. 
9. ^ Davis, D. G. (1986). "A pilot study to assess equality in selected curricular offerings across three diverse schools in a large urban school district: A search for methodology.". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. 
10. ^ Oakes, Jeannie (1985). "Distribution of Knowledge". Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (Yale University Press). 
11. ^ Spade, J. Z.; Columba, L., & Vanfossen, B. E. (1997). "Tracking in Mathematics and Science: Courses and Course-Selection Procedures". Sociology of Education 70 (2): 108–127. doi:10.2307/2673159. 
12. ^ ^{a b} Gamoran, Adam (1992). "The Variable Effects of High School Tracking". American Sociological Review 57 (6): 812–828. doi:10.2307/2096125. 
13. ^ Khmelkov, V.; Maureen Hallinan (1999). "Organizational Effects on Race Relations in Schools". Journal of Social Issues 55 (4): 627–645. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00139. 
14. ^ Braddock, J. H.; R. E. Slavin (1992). "Why Ability Grouping Must End: Achieving Excellence and Equity in American Education". Paper presented at the Common Destiny Conference, Johns Hopkins University.