Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
Author(s): George Ansalone
Source: Race, Gender & Class, 2009, Vol. 16, No. 3/4 (2009), pp. 174-184
Published by: Jean Ait Belkhir, Race, Gender & Class Journal
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41674683
REFERENCES
:Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41674683?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
.facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Race, Gender & Class
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Race, Gonder & Class : Volume 16, Number 3-4, 2009 (174-184)
Race, Gender & Class Website: www.rgc.uno.edu
7feACKiNG,
Equality
Schooling
and
of
EbucATioNAL
the
Opportunity
George
Ansalone
Department of Sociology/Anthropology
St John's University
Historically, American schooling has employed a wide range of
strategies to meet the needs of diverse populations. One such practice, tracking, is
the subject of this research. For more than a half century, schools have assigned
students to various ability groups or tracks based on their perceived academic
ability. This organizational differentiation continues to this day and its impact on
equity and excellence in education has become the center of a contentious debate.
On one side are those who believe that tracking results in unequal access to
knowledge, inequality of educational opportunity and the differential treatment of
students. On the other, are tracking proponents who contend that it facilitates
instruction, promotes learning and provides an excellent strategy to address the
individual needs of all students. In spite of the research which underscores its
negative impact on student outcomes, tracking remains pervasive in American
schooling and a number of assumptions continue to enhance its popularity. This
article examines each of these assumptions in light of existing research to
determine, once and for all, if tracking enhances Equality of Educational
Opportunity and facilitates excellence in education.
Abstract:
Keywords: equality of educational opportunity; inequality; tracking
George Ansalone is Professor in the department of Sociology/Anthropology at St
Johns University, New York. Formerly Dean of Notre Dame College of Liberal
Arts and Education, he is author of numerous articles and research studies which
examine the relationship between education and inequality. His book, Exploring
Unequal Achievement in the Schools: The Social Construction ofFailure explores
unequal achievement in schools through the eyes of a social constructionist and
enables us to appreciate more fully the power inherent in schools to impact
achievement.
Address: Department of Sociology, St Johns Hall, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica,
N.Y. 11439. Ph.: (718) 990 1919, Email: ansalong@stjohns.edu
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
175
The Meaning of Equality of Educational Opportunity
order to fully appreciate the impact of tracking on equity and
excellence, itis important for us to explore the meaning of Equality
In of Educational Opportunity (EEO) and how this concept has evolved
over the past few decades. Without this understanding, itmay be possible for some
to actually claim that tracking does promote equity and excellence.
The concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO) has enjoyed
a long and interesting history in America. At the very core of this concept is the
belief that all children should be provided with access to the same knowledge and
resources. While this belief has remained unchanged, the concept has evolved in
meaning over the past few decades to become more inclusive- of women, blacks
and other minorities. More recently, this concept has been broadened to include
equality of "outcomes" holding educational institutions, at least, partially
accountable for the success rates of different groups within the schools.
Equality of Educational Opportunity:
The Evolution of a Concept
EEO as Equal Access
The evolution of EEO can be traced through at least five different stages
(Coleman, 1968). The earliest required Equal Access to schooling. According to
this interpretation, EEO referred to the ability of all White Americans (Blacks were
originally excluded from this right) to attend a common school and compete with
all other students regardless of social origin. EEO was measured by the degree of
access that people had to schools. Clearly, this interpretation was necessitated by
the Industrial Revolution and the need for workers with some basic skills.
EEO as a Common Curriculum
In time, many recognized that access alone could not guarantee a common
curriculum for all children. Advantaged children attended private schools with a
very different curriculum, while Southern Blacks did not attend or were excluded
from many types of education. And so, EEO was soon equated to the ability to
access schools providing the same curriculum even if the school was separate or
segregated. And so, Black Americans could access the same curriculum as
advantaged groups but only in segregated schools.
EEO as a Differentiated Curriculum
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176
George Ansatone
By the early part of the twentieth century another change in meaning was
about to take place. In 19 18 the National Education Association (NEA) challenged
the belief that a classic liberal arts education, one usually required by those seeking
admission to college, could provide equality of educational opportunity to those not
seeking admission to institutions of higher learning. As a result of their efforts,
EEO became equated to the possibility of a differentiated curriculum- one that
provided a classical education to those seeking admission to college ( college
track) and a vocational education to those disadvantaged youth seeking jobs
(vocational track). Regretfully, more often than not, social origin and race figured
significantly in the track placement of students.
EEO as Same School with the Same Curriculum
It was not until 1954 that "separate but equal' was declared illegal and
Equality of Educational Opportunity interpreted to mean that ALL children of
diverse backgrounds could attend the same school with access to the same
curriculum.
EEO as Equal Results
More recently and as a direct result of Coleman et al., the concept of
Equality of Educational Opportunity took on another meaning. EEO is now
perceived to be present when free and equal access is provided to ALL students
(race, gender, class, handicapping condition) and schools are capable of providing
equality of results or outcomes. While many applaud this interpretation of EEO,
some consider the current practice of educational differentiation in the schools
(tracking) the latest strategy employed in circumventing its application. Let us
explore this possibility.
Getting On Track in American Schooling
Tracking, a controversial form of educational differentiation which
involves the sorting of students by perceived academic ability and curriculum, is
pervasive in American schooling. Regardless of what itis called, Gifted, Special,
Remedial, itexists in many forms. Generally, most tracked classes in the U.S. take
the form of between-class groupings for all academic subjects. Yet another form
of tracking, setting, permits students to be assigned to high- ranking classes for
some but not all of their subjects. When tracking is not part of the formal operating
structure of the school it may be put in practice by the classroom teacher ,
informally, by means of special homogenous instructional groupings ( within-class
groupings) within their respective classes (Ansalone & Biafora, 2004). Regardless
of what itis called, tracking remains a popular feature of American education.
Tracking became standard practice in U.S. schools at the turn-of-the-
century. Some trace its questionable origin to the recommendation of the National
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
177
Education Association's Committee of Ten ( 1892) for more differentiated curricula
to accommodate the diverse student groups entering the schools at that time. The
earliest forms of tracking developed within the urban centers of the North and many
viewed this as an attempt to "Americanize" and segregate the newly arriving
immigrants and poor Southern blacks pouring into the cities. Facilitated by the
passage of compulsorily education laws and the development of IQ testing, the
urban school with its common curricula was soon replaced by factory-like school
rooms which separated children into learning groups for those perceived to be slow,
bright or deficient. The new plan offered differentiated education which could also
appropriately socialize the various groups into work roles suitable to their class
standing. Additionally, providing those students perceived to be inferior in ability
with vocational rather than academic skills was considered an equitable outcome
of schooling. However, the blatant manner by which children were selected for
curriculum tracks based on class, race and ethnicity raised serious concerns about
the equity of American schooling (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In time, the new IQ test
became an integral part of an elaborate tracking system and the common curriculum
was soon replaced with a multi-layered or track system. To this day, many view
tracking as an attempt to segregate children of poor and ethnically- diverse
backgrounds. The practice of tracking remains controversial to this day.
The Arguments: Pro and Con
The arguments in favor of tracking have remained constant for almost a
Turney's (1931) early analysis of research underscores a number of
educational advantages accruing from tracked classes (Kirkland, 1971). His
century.
research suggests that tracking can: 1. facilitate instruction by individualizing
instruction; 2. empower instructors to modify teaching technique according to
class level; 3. eliminate the probability that advanced students will experience
boredom due to the participation of slower students; and 4. encourage slower
students to participate since they will not be overshadowed by more capable peers.
In sum, his research argues that tracking facilitates the teaching experience by
reducing the academic diversity within the class. But this enthusiasm is not shared
by all. While tracking enthusiasts emphasize its efficiency and ability to enhance
the self-development of students; opponents underscore its ability to create
inequalities in the distribution of learning opportunities. Let us briefly examine
each of these perspectives.
The Efficiency Perspective
Some look upon tracking as a means of increasing societal efficiency by
contributing to the proper selection and channeling of national human resources.
They view schools as public institutions entrusted with the responsibility of
channeling students into specific levels within the labor market. Vital to this
approach is the use of I.Q. testing, early identification of student ability, tracking,
and vocational training. Adherents of this perspective view the improved cognitive
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
178
George A nsalone
achievement resulting from the tracking as the most significant and valuable
contribution of tracking. The Self-Development approach, likewise, presents a
favorable view of tracking.
The Self-Development Perspective
The self- development rationale views tracking as a pedagogical device
that assists overall learning and improves student self-concept. By not having to
make invidious comparisons of themselves with more able peers, students develop
improved self-concept and motivation. In turn, positive self-concept facilitates
academic achievement. But the practice of tracking is not without its opponents
and views critical of tracking continue to surface.
The Critical Perspective
Opponents of tracking argue that it represents a veiled attempt to
reproduce and legitimate the stratification system. They underscore the evidence
that lower tracks contain a disproportionate number of Blacks and
Hispanics and
that tracking facilitates the separation of social classes as they attempt to
compete
for advantages in the distribution of school resources and credentials
(Oakes, 1985).
They contend that lower tracks are characterized by an inferior education; while
economically advantaged students are more often placed in upper tracks, typically
characterized by a high currency curriculum and career advantage. This perspective
also looks upon schooling as an attempt to instill in future workers those attitudes
and values essential to any work force, namely: order, docility, acceptance,
discipline, sobriety and humility. Consequently, the personality traits encouraged
in children vary with their expected position in the future work
hierarchy. Decision
making and independence of thought are stressed for those at "the top" while
obedience and acceptance are instilled in those at the lower end of the scale. In
support of this assertion, theorists like Bowles and Gintis (1976) and Oakes (2000)
underscore the extensive range of curriculum choices afforded in upper tracks
compared with the emphasis on obedience and discipline stressed within lower
tracks. In short, this perspective views the attempt to tailor education to the needs
of all children as the desire to establish class related curricula culminating in a
highly stratified track system. Hence, proponents of this perspective endorse
classes of mixed academic ability which are taught the same curricula by equally
qualified teachers. In so doing students are provided with an equal opportunity to
learn.
The contentious debate over tracking and its impact on EEO has not yet
been resolved. Clearly, each of these theoretical perspectives rests on a number of
assumptions about the various outcomes of tracking. Let us now explore each of
these assumptions.
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
179
Tracking: What are the Underlying Assumptions?
In spite of the considerable amount of research that associates tracking
with negative student outcomes, a number of interesting theoretical assumptions
provide credence and support for its popularity. Clearly, the firstand most
pervasive of these assumptions includes the perception that all children learn better
if they are grouped homogeneously with students of similar ability. In short, that
tracking promotes the academic achievement of all students. A second general
assumption is that tracking is fair, accurate and enhances equity in the educational
process. A third assumption shared by supporters of school tracking is the belief
that students will suffer emotionally if they are placed in the same classrooms with
more able children. A heterogeneous mix will force them to make invidious
comparisons with their more able peers and impact negatively on their self-concept
and affective development. Daily contact with students of similar ability will
enhance the self-concept and attitudes of all students. Finally, tracking proponents
assume that teachers prefer tracked classes since they limit the wide range of
academic diversity in the class and thereby make teaching easier. Regretfully, each
of these assumptions has intensified the tracking debate and the controversy
remains unresolved. Let us examine each.
Testing the Assumptions: Tracking Outcomes
Does Tracking improve the academic achievement of all students?
Little support is available for the assumption that tracking improves the
academic achievement of all students. Research conducted in the United States
suggests that tracking has a relatively small impact on academic achievement
(Slavin, 1990). Some early studies reveal a gain for average and superior students
grouped homogeneously (Billett, 1928) but certainly, the political tenor of the day
might have figured significantly in these findings. More recently, research has
uncovered no clear cut beneficial effect on average scholastic achievement with the
exception of a slight benefit to students of perceived high ability at the expense of
average and slow groups (Ansalone, 2006; Loveless, 1999; Oakes et al., 2000).
Additionally, the slight benefit to higher- track students is more likely the result of
subtle processes occurring within the tracks including differential curricula, style
of presentation and differential teacher expectations which favor upper- track
students (Ansalone, 2000).
Does Tracking Facilitate Fairness?
Differential Teacher Expectations
Research concludes that what teachers know about students more often
comes from the student's track assignment and that teachers hold more positive
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
180
George Ansatone
expectations for students in higher tracks. Clearly, teacher expectation is a function
of track position and these expectations do influence student achievement (Entwisel
et al., 1997; Rist, 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1968). Consequently, tracks have
the potential for creating a labeling effect which may facilitate academic
achievement for some while, creating road blocks to achievement for othersespecially those within lower tracks. In sum, tracking creates an unfair learning
environment.
Boaler's (1997; 2000) research in UK schools concludes that ability
grouping creates a set of expectations for teachers that overrides their awareness of
individual academic capabilities. This research revealed that many teachers alter
their routine practices when teaching top tracks since they believe that these
students are brighter and have the ability to think quickly. In another three-year
case study of a mathematics department in a UK school, students were interviewed
to determine their perception of how faculty viewed the various sets. Once again,
the students reported that higher sets (tracks) were considered brighter and often
received more challenging assignments. Differential expectations for academic
success may also impact on the quantity and value of the curriculum which is
presented to the respective tracks. Tracking may impair equity in schooling by
encouraging the development of a differentiated curriculum between the tracks, thus
providing an enriched curriculum to upper track students while denying access to
knowledge to students assigned to lower tracks. Clearly, this violates the very spirit
of Equality of Educational Opportunity.
Differential Curriculum
American research reveals that lower tracks contain a curriculum which
is different in quality and quantity than that offered in upper-tracks. It is not only
slower paced, but more simplistic and fragmented in nature focusing on repetition
and rote as opposed to creativity (Oakes, 1985; Page, 1991 ; McKnight et al, 1987).
In fact, classes bearing the same titles often have very different curriculum content.
The curriculum taught in predominantly minority schools is quite different from
that taught in schools of economically advantaged students (Levin, 1986).
A difference in pace and quantity of material has also been uncovered in
studies by Burgess. A slower presentation rate with considerably more structured
written work was first
revealed in Burgess' early analysis of English streamed
schools (Burgess, 1983). Boaler's analysis of students at Amber Hill in England
likewise found that upper stream students complained of the quick pace of
instruction and the enormous amount of material covered in class (Boaler, 1997).
Individual attention and classroom resources were also found to differ
according to stream Jackson's classic analysis (1964) of 660 schools in England
reveals that higher tracks were offered more challenging academic material, while
lower tracks registered for a more" practical curriculum- wood crafting and animal
husbandry". Teachers in lower tracks stressed cleanliness, manners and discipline
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
181
but were more tolerant of noise.
Upper tracks contained an abundance of
opportunity for independent study. This is confirmed by Boaler's recent analysis.
Children in high sets were treated as mini-mathematicians with the ability to master
difficult concepts in little time. Low ability streams were considered failures,
capable of handling only low level material. These students complained of
unchallenging work, boredom and hours spent copying numbers from the chalk
boards (Boaler, 2000).
Tracking's Influence on Race, Ethnicity and Class
Research suggests that tracking results in the separation of students along
racial, ethnic and socio-economic lines. Early research also supports this
contention. As early as 1970, Rist uncovered that Kindergarten reading groups
were formed during the first
two days of school. Astonishingly, the placements
were made on the basis of student dress, racial differences and parental work
patterns (Rist, 1970). Additional research in this area also supports the belief that
teachers often sort children into distinct tracks based on the quality of their dress
and the demeanor displayed during the firstfew days of class (Rist, 1977).
Linguistic expression and cultural experiences conveyed by students and parents
were also found to be important determinants in the college acceptance of students
studied by Bourdieu and Passeron (1979). These findings are also supported by
more current research which uncovers a disproportionate number of upper track
students assigned to upper tracks. By contrast, economically disadvantaged
students are more often placed in lower tracks. Oakes ( 1995) reveals that minority
students attending racially mixed schools are disproportionately placed in lower
track classes. The participation of Blacks and Hispanics in academic type programs
and upper tracks was 88% of the rate for white students (Braddock, 1990).
Considerable other American research has uncovered a relationship between class,
race and track placement (Ansalone, 2000, 2003; Hallinan, 1995; Oakes, 1985;
Perseil, 1992). Y et another basic assumption would lead us to believe that children
suffer emotionally if they are tracked with more able peers. Let us examine the
research literature in this area.
Does Tracking Impact the Self-Esteem of Slower Students?
Research in this area is generally mixed. Waitrowski (1982) found no
evidence that tracking impacted negatively on the self-esteem of tracked students
while, other research has revealed that tracking impacts favorably on the selfconcept of low ability students grouped homogeneously since they were not forced
to compare themselves with brighter students on a daily basis ( Kulik & Kulik,
1992). On the other hand, some research has revealed that tracking produces
positive self-concepts in students placed in upper tracks and has the opposite effect
for students in lower tracks. Benn and Chitty (1996) revealed that mixed
ability
groupings rather than streams had a more favorable impact on the attitude of the
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
182
George Ansatone
students. One meta-analysis involving 51 studies and over 16000 pupils revealed
that within-class groupings can be successfully employed to promote pupil attitudes
and self-concept. Overall, they found positive effects for within-class groupings on
student self-concept (Abrami et. al., 1999). Tracks can create a self-ftilfilling
prophesy of behavior in students and play an important role in defining the type of
person that they believe themselves to be (Page, 1991).
Here again, the available research does not support the general assumption
that tracking improves the self-concept and self-esteem of all children. Rather, the
educational structure of tracking may impact negatively on the affective
development of lower track students while facilitating positive self-development of
students in upper tracks. Our last assumption suggests that classroom teachers
actually prefer tracked classes.
Do Teachers Prefer Tracked Classes?
The last assumption involves the belief that teachers prefer tracked classes.
For the most part, early tracking research supports this assumption. It suggests that
teachers believe that tracking provides the opportunity for a differentiated
educational experience making it possible to individualize the course content.
Some research also suggests that teachers prefer to instruct upper tracks since they
often define their status as teachers according to their track assignment (Findley &
Bryan, 1970). Similarly, a more recent study, (Ansalone & Biafora, 2004) uncovers
that many teachers are familiar with the negative reports of student outcomes when
tracking is employed but report a need to employ this structure as a managerial tool
in order to work with the wide range of academic disparity within classes. Unlike
earlier research, they do not define their status as teachers by their assigned track
and prefer tracking simply because itlimits the academic range within classes. In
many cases teachers also report not having the tools or know how for dealing with
so many diverse learners within the same class. While little research has been
conducted on teacher preferences, what is available suggest that teachers do prefer
tracked classes since they limit academic diversity (Boaler, 1997; 2000). Clearly,
our research supports the assumption that contemporary teachers prefer to teach
tracked classes but not necessarily because itis more academically sound, rather;
they prefer this educational structure because it makes classroom life more
manageable.
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Our task was to determine if tracking enhanced Excellence and the
Equality of Educational Opportunity. The current analysis lends little support to the
belief that tracking promotes the academic achievement of all students. The
overwhelming number of studies does not support the assumption that tracking
improves achievement. Neither does this analysis uncover evidence that tracked
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tracking, Schooling and the Equality of Educational Opportunity
183
classes improve self-concept. Rather, we learn that tracked schools fail to provide
equal access to the same curriculum and an equal opportunity to learn for all
students. Numerous studies have uncovered a differentiated curriculum between
the tracks with lower track students receiving less and a lower quality of the
intended curriculum. Additionally, researchers have also noted the development
of differential teacher expectations for different tracks that often negatively label
students assigned to lower tracks. Finally, tracking also contributes to the
separation of students along racial, ethnic and social class lines thus denying
students the opportunity to enjoy a rich mix of learning diversity within the
classroom.
It is likely that Tracking creates a restricted learning environment and
career trajectory which impacts on academic competency, access to curricula, future
life chances and most of all- Equality of Educational Opportunity. This restricted
learning environment becomes a socializing structures for students within which
they evaluate themselves as students and learners. Additionally, it becomes a
reference point for teachers, by which they gain information about their students.
Inevitably, this information shapes teacher expectations which in turn impacts on
student outcomes and future life chances. Finally, while many administrators,
teachers and parents consider the homogeneous instruction of students to be good
pedagogy, in reality this research suggests that itrestricts learning and erodes the
core meaning of Equality of Educational Opportunity.
References
Abrami, P., Lou Y., & Chambers, B. (1999). Within- class groupings. London:
National Institute Economic Review , 16:1 05-8.
Ansalone, G. (2000). Keeping on track: A reassessment of tracking in the
schools. Race, Gender and Class, 7(3): 108-32.
. (2003). Poverty, tracking and the social construction of failure.
Journal of Children and Poverty, 9( 1):3-2 1.
. (2006). Tracking: A return to Jim Crow. Race, Gender and Class ,
13(12): 144-53.
Ansalone, G. & Biafora, F. (2004). Elementary school teachers' perceptions to the
educational structure of tracking. Education, 125(2):249-259.
Braddock, J. (1990). Tracking: Implications for student race and ethnic
subgroups. Baltimore, Maryland: Center for Research on Effective
Schooling for Disadvantaged Students
Benn, C. & Chitty, C. (1996). Thirty years on is comprehensive education alive
and well. London: David Fulton.
Billett, R. (1928). A controlled experiment to determine the advantage of
homogeneous grouping. Educational Research Bulletin , 8:133-40.
Boaler, J. (1997). Ability grouping in education. British Educational Research
Journal, 23(5):575-96.
. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping- disaffection and
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184
George Ansatone
polarization. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5):63 1-48.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1979). The inheritors. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bowles, C. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalistic America. New York:
Basic Books.
Burgess. R. (1983). Experiencing comprehensive education. London, Methuen.
Coleman, J.et al. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity . Washington, D.C.:
Gov. Printing Office.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. & Olson, L. (1997). Children, schools and inequality.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Findley, W. & Bryan, M. (1970). Ability grouping. Athens, Ga.: Center for
Educational Improvement, University of Georgia.
Hallinan, M. (1995). Restructuring schools. New York: Plenum Press.
Jackson, B. (1964). Streaming: An education system in miniature. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kirkland, M. (1971). The effects of tests on students and schools. Review of
Educational Research , 41(4):303-350.
Kulik, C. & Kulik, J. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs.
Gifted Children Quarterly, 36(2):73-77.
H.M.
Educational reform for disadvantaged students.
Levin,
(1986).
N.
E.
A.
Washington:
Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking and ability debate. Washington: Thomas
Fordham Foundation.
McKnight, C., Crosswhite, F., & Dorsey, J. (1987). The underachieving
curriculum. Champaigne, IL: Stipes.
J.
Oakes,
(1985). Keeping on track: How schools structure inequality. NH, CT:
Yale University Press.
. (1995). Two cities' tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers
College Record, 96(4):681-90.
Oakes, J.,Quartz, K., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American
schools. San Francisco: Josey Bass.
Page, R. (1991). Lower track classrooms. New York: Teachers College.
Perseil. C. (1992). Differential asset conversion: Class and gender pathways to
selective colleges. Sociology of Education, 65(3):208-25.
Student social class and teacher expectations. Harvard
Rist, R. (1970).
Educational Review, 40:41 1-51.
. (1977). On understanding the processes of schooling. In J.Karabel. &
H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York:
Holt, Rinehart.
Slavin, R.E. (1 990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools:
A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 60:471-99.
Waitrowski, M. et. al. (1982). Curriculum tracking and delinquency. ASR,41'
151-7.
This content downloaded from
150.135.174.100 on Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:12:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms