Leah Voit

EDS 223
Fall 2016
Dr. B. Dellebovi
Literature Review
Tracking and ability grouping is a controversial topic in adolescent education.
Recent research in these areas suggest a myriad of results.
Sara Lake (1998) lists the following argument for tracking in her abstract.
(1) students learn better; (2) slower students do not have to compete
with their brighter peers; (3) placement is accurate and fair; and (4) teachers
find heterogenous groups easier to teach (p. 1).
The study also lists the following arguments against tracking.
(1) no group of students has been found to benefit consistently; (2) isolation
from better students does not help the academic self-concept of those placed
in lower ability groups or tracks; (3) standardized placement tests are not
objective since they are designed to serve the needs of the tracking system;
and (4) the more experience that teachers gain with heterogeneous
grouping, the better they like it (Lake, 1998, p.1).
While Edward Rozyckis paper featured in Educational Horizons is largely against
tracking, where Lakes study is simply aiming for an overview of the pros and cons,
Rozycki does clearly lay out arguments in favor of tracking, albeit in order to refute
them. The article states that proponents of tracking do so to promote higher education
and more intelligent students, which thus then lead to graduates of a high achieving
track ready and able to take the necessary steps towards a higher income. (Rozycki,
2004, p. 115) The basic idea behind tracking is to push students to their limits, and not

force them into roles that they may never be able to fully succeed in (Lake, 1998).
Issues are abundant with tracking. Traditionally, students are placed on tracks with
clinical decision making Clinical decision making entails teachers, counselors,
parents, and even students themselves making the decision about where to place
students during their education, be it on a vocational or educational track. There is an
inherent problem of human bias when attempting to create a homogenous student
population using clinical decision. Preconceived notions about a student are used in
clinical decision making, and therefore tracking may not have its desired effect. Student
populations when tracked with a statistical model are far more homogenous than their
clinically decided counterparts. The variables involved in this model rely largely on test
scores (Klapporth, 2015). What goes unaccounted for in Francis Klapporths write up of
his study is the inherent bias of standardized tests. While his study does indicate a more
homogenous classroom, it only is homogenous in test taking ability, and not overall
ability or student potential.
When students are put on certain tracks, it limits diversity in the classroom.
Tracking can perpetuate both economic and thus racial segregation when performed too
soon during adolescent education. Students who are economically disadvantaged have
a harder time succeeding in school because their resources and opportunities are far
more limited outside the classroom. Statistically, economically disadvantaged students
are also more likely to be students of color. According to Lavrijsen and Nicaises study,
simply delaying rigid tracking until later in adolescence can eliminate most, if not all, of
the inequality presented by tracking too early (2015). When a student is tracked at 12,
socioeconomic factors play a much larger role and influence academic performance

much greater than they do at 16.

Along the same lines of students fitting into tracks based on upbringing, students
who are tracked will generally fit stronger and believe stereotypes about themselves.
According to a study done in Japan, students who rely on previous exam scores and
comparisons to others will have their ambitions cooled out (Tsukada, 1986). This
means that tracking is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Students will largely achieve
what they are expected to achieve, and believe what they are led to believe about
themselves. The study also found that students were largely reliant on family
background as the most important factor in their tracking (Tsukada, 1986). This means
that low achieving students come largely from low achieving backgrounds, and high
achieving students come largely from high achieving backgrounds. The difference that
junior high school education made when placing students on track for high school was
negligible.
Another argument in the tracking debate is whether or not student choice is a
meaningful factor. A study conducted in China by Yingquan Song, Prashant Loyalka and
Jianguo Wei looked at what students in rural China wanted to choose as their future
paths, and the choices they actually ended up making (2013). This study confirmed that
the biggest factors in students decisions were personal grades, parents education
levels, income levels in their home, the type of household they live in, parents working
away from home, and the awareness of government financial aid policy. Students in
rural China, when given the choice, were far more apt to choose an academic high
school over a vocational high school, because the former is the gateway to higher
education, and the latter is chosen only as a last resort (Song, 2013; p. 41). Students

who choose vocational high school often do so because the factors influencing their
lives have shattered their dreams. For example, a student with low income and a
working mother would feel the pressure to enter into a vocational track as opposed to
pursue the costly dream of higher education.
As stated in Lavrijsen and Nicaise study that showed delaying the age at which
tracking happens can negate some of these outside factors, tracking can also limit
diversity (2015). It is largely a belief of the American schooling system that formal
education prepares a student for later in life. Li-Ching Ho compared how education
affects citizenship in the United States and Singapore (2013). Hos findings stated that
where students were exposed to differentiated education and expected to succeed at a
high level, they were given more opportunity and developed a higher skill set.
...Singapore students in the vocational track and the low SES American
students from urban schools, for example, are far less well-prepared than
their counterparts in the higher status schools and academic tracks in
terms of the civic knowledge and skills necessary for making reasoned
political decisions (Ho, 2013; p. 33).
Because the factors involved in tracking relate largely to a students background and not
just their potential, tracking can reinforce stereotypes and divisions in society.
Furthermore, Hos study solidifies the idea that tracking in education can lead to selffulfilling prophecies for students.
High-achieving students who are provided with more demanding content l
earn more while low-achieving students are disadvantaged by being exposed
to less challenging content and skills (Ho, 2013; p. 32).

Hos findings conclude with the idea that, while differentiated curriculum is not
necessarily bad for students, all students should be held to a high standard and given
the necessary skills to entertain involved citizenship in a democratic society (2013).
Furthering the topic of diversity in the classroom is Allen Graubards 2004 article
titled Progressive Education and the Tracking Debate. In his article, Graubard
discusses the studies and articles he read, all of which further sustain that students will
live up to their expectations, and these expectations are often too low for students on
lower tracks. This is inherently unfair. School tracking frequently perpetuates an idea of
elite versus non-elite and this can carry over to parents. In Graubards anecdotal
experience with tracking, the issues of whether or not tracking was detrimental came
down to the four core courses, specifically in the areas of English/language arts and
social studies. When these courses were de-tracked, student performance was largely
unaffected, but the capable students didnt feel challenged. Graubards experience can
be summarized that each individual student needs to be challenged in a way that best
fits their needs. Societal and political factors influence student achievement far more
than tracking. Smaller heterogeneous schools prove to do more to lessen the
achievement gap than de-tracking. Simply making classrooms heterogeneous has little
value (Graubard, 2004).
Graubards anecdotal findings that tracking is not the cause of the student
achievement gap can be backed up by further scientifically modeled studies. Heather
Hessens 2010 study focused closely on students in the state of Ohio over a period of
ten years.
None of the data showed any strong correlations to support either the

tracking or de-tracking approach. Conclusion: There are too many

variables, such as different measures of proficiency, variation in number of
years tested for proficiency, teacher turn-over rates, demographics,
student abilities, etc. Student performance is affected by more than just
the method of instruction. I feel that the only way to be inviting to all
students, is to offer the same opportunities to everyone and differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of a wide range of learners and abilities
(Hessen, 2010; p. 10).
Even more critical is the study done by Magnus Bygren and featured in Sociology of
Education (2016). Simply put, Bygren believes that there are far too many factors
involved in ability grouping students to argue either for or against tracking. Attributing
grades and later achievement are negligible. Further, Bygren is critical of previous
studies done on tracking, stating that they may not have been conducted properly.
...suggesting that inadequate control groups in prior research have given
rise to a misperception that ability grouping is harmful for disadvantaged
students (Bygone, 2016; p. 134).

Bibliography
1.
Bygren, M. (2016). Ability Groupings Effects on Grades and the Attainment of
Higher Education: A Natural Experiment. Sociology of Education, 89(2), 118-136. doi:
10.1177/0038040716642498
2.
Graubard, A. (2004, September). Progressive Education and the Tracking
Debate. Radical Teacher, 77(3), 32-39. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://
web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.canisius.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=3eb8e507d586-4166-9666ff2b2a6a03da@sessionmgr102&vid=1&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ=
=#AN=507880334&db=eft
3.
Hessen, H. (2010). To Track or Not To Track. Online Submission, 14. Retrieved
October 15, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509024.pdf
4.
Ho, L. (2013). Meritocracy, Tracking, and Elitism: Differentiated Citizenship
Education in the United States and Singapore. The Social Studies, 105(1), 29-35. doi:
10.1080/00377996.2013.788473
5.
Klapporth, F. (2015). Do Algorithms Homogenize Students Achievements in
Secondary School Better Than Teachers; Traking Decisions? EPAA Education Policy
Analysis Archives. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2007
6.
Lake, S. (1988). Equal Access to Education. Alternatives to Tracking and Ability
Grouping. Practitioner's Monograph #2 [Abstract]. California League of Middle Schools,
00-19. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://
web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.canisius.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
sid=b26876b8-3f74-4795-ac41f058b83c3b1d@sessionmgr4006&vid=0&hid=4201&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z
Q==#AN=ED303553&db=eric
7.
Lavrijsen, J., & Nicaise, I. (2015). New empirical evidence on the effect of
educational tracking on social inequalities in reading achievement. European
Educational Research Journal, 14(3-4), 206-221. doi:10.1177/1474904115589039
8.
Rozycki, E. G. (1999). "Tracking" in Public Education: Preparation for the World
of Work? Educational Horizons, 77(3), 113-116. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from
http://pc7ph6af7w.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.canisius.edu/?
sid=EBSCO:Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson)&genre=article&title=Educational
Horizons&atitle=Tracking in public education: preparation for the world of work?

&author=Rozycki, Edward G.&authors=Rozycki, Edward

G.&date=19990415&volume=77&issue=3&spage=113&issn=0013175X
9.
Song, Y., Loyalka, P., & Wei, J. (2013). Determinants of Tracking Intentions, and
Actual Education Choices Among Junior High School Students in Rural China. Chinese
Education & Society, 46(4), 30-42. doi:10.2753/ced1061-1932460403
10.
Tsukada, M. (1986). Tracking System and Informal Education in Japan. 1-43.
Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED310515.pdf