Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Academic Segregation:
Sandeep Dhagat
Professor Suk
Despite its almost universally accepted practice in American public schools, tracking
has come under renewed scrutiny and criticism from the Department of Education (DoE), Civil
Rights groups, and student advocates in recent years. Tracking, in its purest form, is where
students are designated for separate educational paths based on their academic performance
(Burris & Garrity 2008). Along with its related variants, like ability grouping, tracking has
been a mainstay in education organizing practice since the early 20th century (Hallinan 2004).
administrative officials considered it necessary to sort and track students by ability (Hallinan
2004). The net effect was to place immigrant students in lower-level classes to isolate native
students. The advent of the IQ test and standardized achievement scores accelerated this trend,
and provided the sorting process with an appearance of scientific validity (Burris & Garrity
2008).
were assigned to (1) academic, (2) general, or (3) vocational tracks. At one extreme students
were groomed for college, while those at the other end prepared for a trade school or secretarial
work (Hallinan 2004). By around the 1950s, a majority of secondary schools used some form
of tracking, and the practice was especially prevalent in large comprehensive high schools.
Today, this form of tracking is relatively rare. In the early 1970s, policymakers and educators
who feared America was losing its competitive edge began demanding that all students have
access to a rigorous academic curriculum. The 1983 A Nation at Risk report, which included
recommendations for improving academic outcomes, led states to pass minimum graduation
3|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
standards (Hallinan 2004). These standards required students to take a specific number of
courses in the core subjects of English, mathematics, social studies, and science.
With the new emphasis on preparing every student for college, tracking in its modern
iteration has meant grouping students by ability within subjects within schools (Burris &
Garrity 2008). In each subject, students are assigned to advanced, regular, or basic courses
results (Snowman & McCown 2015). For instance, students in the advanced track might take
pre-calculus as juniors and calculus as seniors, while students in the basic track might go only
as far as algebra II. The creation and growth of Advanced Placement (AP) courses, which can
be used to earn college credits, is the best example of how ability tracking has become an
institutionalized practice (Hallinan 2004). According to the College Board, the administrating
organization, the number of students sitting for AP exams has increased sevenfold since 1980
(Hallinan 2004). Yet, College Board data shows that only one-third of all students enrolled in
AP courses actually sit for the exam (Hallinan 2004). In effect, the rise in AP examinations is
investigation of tracking in South Orange Maplewood, a New Jersey school district with a
socioeconomically diverse population. A joint complaint from the ACLU and The Civil Rights
Project alleging that tracking unfairly targeted African-American and Latino students of
color prompted the review of the districts academic policies in upper-level classes (Kohli
2014). The DoEs analysis of enrollment statistics found that although Black students made up
47.4% of total enrollment in the districts 8th grade, they represented only 11.6% of upper-level
math students (Kohli 2014). A similar analysis of the districts high school AP course
4|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
enrollment revealed the same pattern: white students accounted for just 38.4% of total
enrollment, but 69.8% of AP course takers (Kohli 2014). In one case, an African-American
female student had to have her parents personally petition the high school principal to take an
advanced freshman math class, despite having the requisite middle school grades and
standardized tests scores (Kohli 2014). The problem was completely systemic: at every level
where students were tracked, black students were underrepresented in higher-level classes
(Kohli 2014). The results led the district to enter a resolution agreement with the federal
government, requiring them to hire a consultant to examine their practices and to come up with
As of November 2014, the Office for Civil Rights had 40 cases pending related to
tracking and racial disparity in school districts (Kohli 2014). In the three years prior, the agency
had resolved a further 16 cases where racial disparity caused by tracking had been found in
gifted and talented programs, advanced placement courses, and upper-level classes (Kohli
2014). Despite the 1954 Brown v. BOE ruling that mandated desegregation of Americas
public schools, the tracking system has acted as barrier to integration within schools, defying
the spirit of the ruling. Families with money and resources can ensure their kids test into higher-
level classes, while poorer children (mainly black and Latino) are left in lower-level classes.
No Child Left Behind, the 2001 law meant to force schools to focus on struggling students,
actually led to an increase in de facto tracking in younger grades as schools separated out
Surprisingly though, case-studies show that tracking can affect racial compositions
even between schools in the same district. Sociologist Sean Drakes study of two high schools
achievement gaps based on race (2017). Pinnacle High School, a pseudonym for the high
performing school, overrepresented Asians and underrepresented Latinos in their student body
(Drake 2017). Meanwhile, at Crossroads High School, a pseudonym for the continuation high
school for students in danger of not graduating, both Black and Latino students are
overrepresented (Drake 2017). Blacks represented 1.6% of Valley Views population, but 9.4%
of the study body at Crossroads. Asians made up 39.1% of the general population, but only
9.5% of the student population at Crossroads. Latinos made up 9.2% of the general population,
and 36.5% of the Crossroads population (Drake 2017). Drake found that Pinnacle used
Crossroads as a dumping ground for lower-achieving students, even those who were only
categorized as nearly credit deficient or barely credit deficient (2017). In effect, Pinnacle
managed its academic rankings and reputation by using tracking and transfer policies that
resulted in unbalanced racial demographics. Thus, tracking must be evaluated at both the
A number of traditional argument have been made in favor and against tracking by a
variety of stakeholders. Proponents say that tracking helps teachers by allowing them to better
direct lessons toward the specific ability level of the students in each class. Vygotskys zone
of proximal development and the need to scaffold learning often underlie this argument
(Snowman & McCown 2015). In addition, they claim that advanced placement courses help
retain wealthier, middle-class families, who could opt for private schools if tracking was
abandoned (Kohli 2014). In addition, tracking ensures teachers compare students only to
similar-ability peers. The conclusion is that students self-esteem would be lowered if their
For opponents of tracking, their contentions lie with both the results of tracking for as
well as the sociocultural and historical implications. The primary criticism is that the practice
creates greater learning opportunities for high-performing students at the expense of their
lower-performing peers (Schmidt et. al., 2015) Opponents allege that students in lower tracks
often have the weakest or least experienced teachers, an unchallenging or remedial curriculum,
few academic role models, and low social status (Hallinan 2004). Jeannie Oakes, who wrote
Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality in 1985, theorized that the disproportionate
placement of poor and minority students into low tracks reflects a historical legacy of the
original nativist push of immigrant and racial minorities into vocational programs (Burris &
Garrity 2008). She argues the system of tracking creates highly stable feedback loops where
students of low-SES families remain in poverty due to the unequal education provided in
tracked classrooms.
because the tracks are still too heterogenous to differentiate instruction effectively. Even if
tracks are initially homogenous in students academic abilities, heterogeneity can still develop
over time because students learn at different rates (Loveless 2013)). A common tracking myth
is that curriculums are the same among different tracks for the same subject, but that each track
goes at a different pace. Lessons for lower-track classes tend to be content-poor, lack
development (Burris & Garrity 2008). Thus, curricular differentiation will necessary lead to
unequal outcomes because the separation of students into different courses with different
content exposures mirror background inequalities. The fiercest critics of tracking call it an
elitist practice perpetuating the status quo by giving students from privileged families mainly
7|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
White and Asian greater access to the education required for elite colleges and high-income
Across the educational research literature, most studies confirm the criticisms made of
tracking by its opponents. Stanfords Eric Hanushek found that 8 out of 9 countries that track
students before age 16, have a larger achievement gap on test scores than countries that do not
track (Kohli 2014)). Tracking helps students in higher tracks on almost all academic measures,
while students in lower tracks perform worse than in heterogenous, non-tracked classes (Kohli
2014). A study of OECD countries taking the international PISA exam by William Schmidt
found that, after controlling for prior student achievement and SES, the estimated effect of
mathematics tracking was two-thirds of a standard deviation for the higher track (2015). In
addition, he found that the largest source of opportunity to learn inequality (OTL) or the
number of times a student is likely to encounter a specific topic is within schools and not
between schools (Schmidt et. al., 2015). Surprisingly, Schmidt found that compared to OECD
countries, America has a higher within school inequality problem (ranked second) than
between school inequality (ranked among 10 lowest). Other statistics confirm that advanced
placement courses are associated with SES and, in turn, racial demographics. According to a
study by Theokas & Saaris on AP and IB course enrollment, middle and high-income students
are three times more likely to enroll in an AP course than low-income students (2013). AP
course participation rates for Hispanics (9%), Native Americans (6.3%), and Blacks (6%) are
lower than the overall participation rate of 11.7% (Theokas & Saaris 2013). A similar College
Board study in 2012 found that 75%, 72%, and 66% of Native American, Black, and Hispanic
students did not take an AP mathematics course despite having proficient PSAT scores to take
one (Theokas & Saaris 2013). Thus, pedagogical practices and institutional policies are the
8|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
source of inequalities in academic achievement within and between schools rather than true
In one respect, my educational experiences have been filled with examples of tracking
and ability grouping at work. My earliest recall of tracking practices was in the second grade,
where my school grouped students by English language arts proficiency for reading and writing
lessons within the classroom. Since I was grouped into the lowest performing group, my
lessons were drastically different from my peers and often required me spending time with a
dedicated specialist in the corner of the room with another peer. During group reading
activities, I had a smaller range of books I was allowed to choose from to read. Not only do I
recall this promoting social isolation, but it lowered my emotional enjoyment of reading until
I left elementary school. Even today, I am unsure whether the ability grouping actually aided
my ELA development or whether other factors led to the improvement (e.g. reading more,
Later, in the fifth grade, our school performed a district-wide assessment to determine
which incoming sixth grade students would be included in the Enrichment program at the
middle school. While I did test into the program for sixth grade (where there were two classes
of students), I failed to qualify for the seventh-grade course (where there was only one class of
students) because my grades were lower than other students. Unfortunately, the overall school
population was so homogenous (mostly Asian and White students), that assessing any negative
outcomes relative to being tracked up or down from year to year is difficult to evaluate this
many years later. I would also note that students who made up the Enrichment classes in sixth
grade were not necessarily the highest achieving students at high school, which suggests there
9|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
were mediating factors that weakened the effect of that tracking practice. For example, the top
10% of our graduating class was much more Asian in representation than the Enrichment
In seventh grade, there was another grade-level mathematics test, but only for students
with the requisite grades and teacher recommendations. The exam was two parts and
determined who would be placed into the higher-level math track starting in eighth grade. A
number of my friends moved into the higher track, but I failed to get the minimum score for
the first part by 1 question. Part of my initial frustration with that placement test was the
perceived label that I was less capable than my higher-achieving peers to do the same work,
even though I felt confident in my own ability to do well. Those in the highest track finished
senior year of high school at AP Calculus BC, assuming they did not drop down to a lower
track in between eighth and twelfth grade. Those in the middle track finished at some level of
Calculus AB (AP, honors, regular). Those in the lowest track finished at pre-Calculus.
High school, by far, had the most pervasive and greatest number of tracking practices
on display. Students, from the first day of freshman year, were grouped by academic ability
for every subject excluding elective classes. In freshman year students could choose from CP
(conceptual), CP (mathematical), and honors options for each core subject. In sophomore year,
about 50 students with recommendations from freshman honors social studies teachers began
taking AP courses (European History or Human Geography). In junior year, all eligible
students were allowed to sign up for AP courses, essentially becoming a fourth track. AP and
honors courses overrepresented Asian students relative to the total student population, and had
almost no representation by Black or Latino students. AP and honors courses seemed racially
The most glaring example of how tracking personally impacted my life in a noticeable
way is to compare my peer group at eight grade with my peer group at twelfth grade. By any
measure, my eight grade peer group was more racially, ethnically, religiously,
socioeconomically, and politically diverse than my peer group in senior year because it
included students who would later be tracked into CP and upper level courses. In my opinion,
this is one of the most damaging effects of tracking, and one that is not particularly talked
about. In many ways, tracking isolates individuals upon certain demographic lines, creating
enclosed peer groups that have less interaction with other groups. In middle school, students
are much more likely to have friends whose lifestyle and culture are completely different than
their own because students are grouped randomly into classes. Starting in high school, the
process of selecting classes slowly isolates individuals into their respective niches. There are
particularly important societal implications for this anecdotal trend, especially given increasing
political polarization and enclaving. Schools should be forcing disparate students to interact
and learn from each other rather than boxing them into comfort zones. This concern would be
more subtle examples of ability grouping occurring in the classroom. For example, during my
current field placement, a select group of students were chosen by my cooperating teacher to
do an advanced science project based on their academic performance so far. While the group
of students selected had no racial disparity (there was a proportional mix of Hispanic, White,
11 | P a g e Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
male, and female students), it did seem to increase their academic confidence at the expense
of their peers. I concluded that some students saw the advance project as a reward to those
students and an indirect punishment for them, while the teachers likely intention was to
Despite my full understanding and acceptance of both the research results and the
historical context framing tracking in American public schools, it remains one of the most
difficult positions personally to determine. For one, in almost every considerable way, I am a
product of tracking, and have benefited enormously from its practice from middle school
onward. However, given that my school district had less SES and racial diversity, it came at
almost no direct expense to any other student. Yet, as the research and case-studies indicate,
students that are already disadvantaged by socioeconomic, historical, and cultural factors. That
alone makes it difficult, if not impossible, to come out in favor of tracking in any form in the
Although, the realization that one of the primary groups to benefit from tracking
practices (especially at the high school level) has been Asian-Americans is an admittedly
difficult pill to swallow. While clearly a personal bias, it seems hard to accuse Asians (as Drake
seems to do when discussing the institutional success frame), of helping to perpetuate the
academic culture and administrative practices hurting minority students when Asians have so
little sociopolitical power themselves. We make up less than 6% of the national population,
have little if any political representation, make up a small fraction of teachers, and have been
12 | P a g e Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
concern is that our society has racialized academic achievement so much that we fail to see
how the institutional practices that seemingly favor certain demographic groups actually hurt
everyone as a collective. Individual Asians who do not fit the statistics regarding their
seemingly superior academic achievement may suffer psychological harm from trying to live
marginalized may not receive the academic resources and attention they need because data is
not disaggregated. Blacks who achieve academic success are meanwhile suspected of having
standards lowered for them rather than believing they met expectations on merit.
All parts considered, I oppose tracking and ability grouping, and believe teachers must
advocate for reforms that reverse the practice at all levels. Tracking is highly suspect for any
number of reasons, including its historical origin and legacy, the effect on achievement it has
for low-ability students, and the social fragmentation it induces. Teachers should advance
equitably meet all students needs. When students make attributions that treat ability as innate
and unchanging, we know this is incorrect and try to promote a growth mindset instead. Yet,
when students are tracked into classes based on ability, where curriculum and content are
different, are we not making the same false attribution: that currently low-achieving students
are actually permanent low-ability students who should not be expected to learn the same
material? It would be wrong to believe and say one thing, but do another. If I were a teacher in
a high school that used tracking, I would try to lobby my administration or department to
eliminate tracking practices. I would openly look for underrepresented minority students who
I felt confident were ready for advanced courses, but needed a nudge or vote of confidence. I
13 | P a g e Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
would advocate for getting rid of subjective gatekeeping tools like teacher recommendations
that may discourage or impact certain groups of students. Tracking has been around for 100
years, and it will take a long-time to undo the damage it has done, but it should start at the local
level because it will require educating parents, teachers, administrators, and BOE members.
V. References
Burris, C. C., & Garrity, D. T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria, VA:
Drake, S. (2017). Academic segregation and the institutional success frame: unequal schooling
and racial disparity in an integrated, affluent community. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Hallinan, M. T. (2004). The Detracking Movement. Education Next, 4(4), 72-76. Retrieved
Kohli, S. (2014, November 18). Modern-Day Segregation in Public Schools. Retrieved October
segregation-in-public-schools/382846/
Loveless, T. (2013, March). The 2013 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well
Are American Students Learning (Rep. No. 2). Retrieved October 18, 2017, from Brookings
center-report-web-3.pdf
Quinton, S. (2014, December 11). The Race Gap in High School Honors Classes. Retrieved
in-high-school-honors-classes/431751/
14 | P a g e Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)
Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The Role of Schooling in
Snowman, J., & McCown, R. R. (2015). Psychology Applied to Teaching (14th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Theokas, C., & Saaris, R. (2013, June). Finding Americas Missing AP and IB Students (Rep.).
Retrieved October 18, 2017, from The Education Trust: Shattering Expectations website:
https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Missing_Students.pdf