Detracking America Schools - the Reform Without Cost
DJ BREWER,DI REES,LM ARGYS
IF: 0.98
1995-01-01
Phi Delta Kappan
Abstract:ABILITY GROUPING or tracking has long been used in public schools as an important method for organizing students, particularly at the high school level. It is seen as a way to narrow the range of performance and motivation in a group of students, thereby making teaching easier and preventing less able students from holding back those with greater academic talent. However, as concern over test scores, dropout rates, and related social ills has grown, tracking has become increasingly controversial. Opponents of the practice have argued that tracking stigmatizes students who are consigned to low-track classes with less experienced teachers, fewer resources, and lower expectations. Moreover, the detrackers maintain that average and even above-average students do not derive substantial academic benefits from being grouped together.(1) The detracking bandwagon has gathered some steam. In her 1992 book, Crossing the Tracks: How 'Untracking' Can Save America's Schools, Anne Wheelock argued that detracking is a necessary component of successful school reform and detailed several experiments.(2) A recent Kappan article described the case against existing tracking practices as compelling and offered examples of practical ways in which detracking might actually be carried out.(3) The National Education Association has recommended that schools discontinue tracking practices; the National Governors' Association has also endorsed detracking.(4) The conventional wisdom seems to have evolved into a belief that tracking is universally bad for low-ability students and neutral for other students. If this is true, the policy prescription is very clear: detrack. Everyone will gain, and no one will lose. Our purpose here is not to pour cold water on detracking efforts or to argue that detracking is necessarily bad policy. Rather, we want to challenge the view that tracking can be ended with little or no cost. First, we revisit the previous research on the effects of tracking on student academic achievement and find remarkably little support for detracking efforts. Second, we present some findings of our own, based on analyses of nationally representative data and using current statistical techniques. Our estimates suggest that, while public high school students in low-track math classes do worse on standardized tests than they would have done had they been in an untracked class, students in high-track classes actually perform better academically. This suggests a less clear-cut policy prescription. How Widespread Is Tracking? Tracking is a pervasive phenomenon in American secondary schools. The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), a nationally representative student survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), provides perhaps the best available picture of tracking practices.(5) In 1988 NELS sampled more than 20,000 eighth-grade students in more than 100 schools. Most of these students were resurveyed in the 10th and 12th grades in 1990 and 1992. The survey contains a range of questions dealing with student academic performance, family background, attitudes, and school experiences. Teachers, administrators, and parents were also surveyed. Indeed, NELS is unique in that it allows researchers to link a student with a particular class and teacher in a given subject area (mathematics, science, English, or social studies). Eighth- and 10th-grade teachers were asked about a number of classroom characteristics, including whether the class each student attended was composed of students of above-average, average, below-average, or widely differing (heterogeneous) achievement levels relative to other students in the school. Using the descriptive statistics from these responses and adjusting them for the particular composition of the NELS sample enables us to obtain nationally representative estimates of the extent of tracking.(6) Clearly, tracking is a widespread phenomenon. …