1|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)

Raritan Valley Community College

Academic Segregation:

How Tracking Perpetuates Educational Inequality

Sandeep Dhagat

Education Field Experience (EDUC 230) Current Trends Facilitation

Professor Suk

December 8th, 2017

2|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)

I. Tracking: Past & Present Trends

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).

Beginning as a response to an influx of immigrant children entering American schools,

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).

During the initial implementation of tracking, junior-high and high-school students

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

depending on past academic performance, teacher recommendations, and standardized test

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

being fueled by a relatively small group of students taking multiple AP exams.

In 2014, the Department of Education released a press report concluding an

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

a plan to increase equity.

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

children who needed targeted instruction (Quinton 2014).

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

in an affluent, racially diverse Southern California district found widespread academic

5|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)

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

interschool level and the intraschool level.

II. How Tracking Drives Educational Inequality

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

work were compared to higher-ability students (Burris & Garrity 2008).

6|Page Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)

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.

Studies suggest tracking fails for low-achieving and average-achieving students

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

engagement and application opportunities, and deprive students of critical thinking

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

careers (Hallinan 2004).

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

differences in student ability to learn.

III. Course Context & Personal Experiences

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,

talking more, writing 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

classes in middle school.

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

homogenous, ethnically diverse, religiously diverse, socioeconomically homogenous, and

10 | P a g e Dhagat, Sandeep (Fall 2017)

politically homogenous. Meanwhile, CP (conceptual and mathematical) courses seemed

racially homogenous, ethnically homogenous, religiously homogenous, socioeconomically

diverse, and politically diverse.

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

only worse in districts more diverse than my own.

In my pre-professional experiences, at my education field placements, there have been

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

differentiate instruction. However, by not providing the opportunity to everyone interested, it

was perceived as favoritism rather than meritocracy.

IV. Concluding Remarks & Professional Considerations

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,

tracking does have real, measurable, negative consequences, particularly on populations of

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

public school setting.

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)

disadvantaged by other discrimination practices through history (e.g. immigration). My

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

up to that fictitious standard. Meanwhile Asian subgroups who remain economically

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

differentiated instruction within a heterogenous, mixed-ability classroom in order to fairly and

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:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Studies, 43(14), 2423-2439. doi:10.1080/1369183x.2017.1315868

Hallinan, M. T. (2004). The Detracking Movement. Education Next, 4(4), 72-76. Retrieved

December 12, 2017, from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20044_72.pdf

Kohli, S. (2014, November 18). Modern-Day Segregation in Public Schools. Retrieved October

18, 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/modern-day-

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

Institution website: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2013-brown-

center-report-web-3.pdf

Quinton, S. (2014, December 11). The Race Gap in High School Honors Classes. Retrieved

October 18, 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-race-gap-

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

Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective. Educational

Researcher,44(7), 371-386. doi:10.3102/0013189x15603982

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