Ability Grouping

Abstract

This article discusses ability grouping, also known as tracking or homogenous grouping, in the public schools. Ability grouping has resulted in dividing the all-school program into different tracks and subtracks. Ability grouping emanated from the "efficiency" movement and the principles of scientific management which increasingly dominated American education during the first four decades of the twentieth century. High schools have always grouped students typically in three curriculum tracks: college-preparatory, general education, and vocational education. Among the factors that have been used to group students are general intelligence and/or prior achievement scores, aptitude, interests, learning styles and learning speeds. Students receive a differentiated curriculum and differentiated instruction based on their ability-group assignment. A growing consensus based on evidence from educational research is that students perform at higher levels and achieve more in schools that do not practice ability grouping or tracking. Advocates of educational change in the U.S. support the elimination of ability grouping or academic tracking. This article discusses the characteristics of ability grouping or tracking programs, outlines key issues and related questions, examines arguments for and against the practice, and summarizes the evidence and conclusions of educational research.

Ability grouping or tracking is the practice of dividing or segregating students according to their capacity for learning into separate classes for the fastest and slowest learners—high-, average-, and low-achievers (Cetron & Gayle, 1991; Oakes, 1989). The basic idea behind ability grouping or tracking is that students can be sorted and classified into relatively homogeneous groups with respect to ability levels based on their general intelligence or prior achievement scores and placed into separate classrooms according to this subdivision (Borg, 1987; Hallinan, 1996; Martz, 1992). The homogeneous groups are composed of at least three levels: the smartest and fastest students in advanced classes, the bulk of students in mainstream classes, and the slowest or most academically challenged students in remedial classes. Other criteria or variables besides intelligence and achievement that have been used to construct homogeneous groups are aptitude (e.g., a special skill or talent), interests, learning styles, social maturity, physical development, and life plans (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

Ability grouping or tracking based on students' intelligence or IQ and achievement is a common and widespread, if not universal, characteristic of public education in the U.S. Almost all, or at least the vast majority, of U.S. public schools track students. It is a pervasive organizational practice in U.S. secondary schools, and practically all large comprehensive high schools in the U.S. have two or three tracks at a minimum (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986; Hallinan, 1996; Losen, 1999; Oakes, 1989; Nevi, 1989; Tice, 1994). Key characteristics of ability grouping and tracking programs are summarized in Table 1.

This system has become more prevalent as the complexity of education has increased, content has broadened, and students have become more heterogeneous (Nevi, 1989). Other reports such as Vladero (1995) have found that ability grouping or tracking is not a common practice, or as common a practice as has been assumed in U.S. schools. In some states, ability grouping or tracking systems have been eliminated and have been replaced by more efficient teaching methods (Cetron & Gayle, 1991; Schubert, 1986).

Overview

History. "The history of education is the history of tracking" (Nevi, 1989, p. 300).

The so-called "efficiency" movement and the principles of scientific management increasingly captivated public-school officials during the first four decades of the twentieth century (Noll, 1989). One scientific management principle that has been attributed to John Franklin Bobbit (1912) and that was applied to public schooling in the early 1900s was: "Work up the raw material into that finished product for which it is best adapted" (Noll, 1989, p. 288). Scientific management and the "efficiency" movement resulted in a tracking system in schools that ultimately reproduced the divisions of the social class system (Noll, 1989). "The ideal of a unified curriculum gave way to the ideal of differentiating students for predetermined places in the work force" (Stevens & Wood, 1987, p. 160). Students were classified, sorted, ranked, and assigned to various curricula and instructed in ways that ultimately led to a specific type of employment, work or career—for example, professional or vocational—suitable for their aptitude (Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Many sophisticated techniques were developed between 1910 and 1945 to measure intelligence, sort talent, and track students (Stevens & Wood, 1987). Testing became a common means used to track students, and the testing and measurement movement of the 1920s revealed that there were large differences in intelligence and achievement among the students in a typical classroom (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Stevens & Wood, 1987). The development of IQ tests provided a means to scientifically measure, classify, and track students (Stevens & Wood, 1987). Standardized achievement tests were applied in creating differentiated educational programs and curricula for different levels of talent (Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Although the foundations of the tracking movement began much earlier, tracking programs based upon homogeneous grouping caught fire and spread in the U.S. during the 1950s and reached their peaks during the 1960s and early 1970s (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Ability grouping or tracking has continued to influence American education since that time.

Viewpoints

Summary of Arguments for & against Ability Grouping or Tracking. This section will summarize the voluminous educational research literature by examining in turn the major arguments for and against ability grouping or tracking as practiced in U.S. public schools. There are various issues and questions regarding the use of ability grouping or tracking, and these are enumerated in Table 2. The arguments for and against the practice outlined in this section are meant to summarize the prevailing evidence as discussed in the literature, address the key issues cited, and answer the related questions posed in Table 2.

Arguments for Ability Grouping or Tracking. Ability grouping or tracking is one method that has been used to improve the instructional setting for students and ideally, it provides the means to organize and group students best for learning (Nevi, 1989). Ability grouping or tracking decisions need to be made within the context of the all-school program so as to maintain the broadest base of students possible while at the same time considering the positive aspects associated with creating elective opportunities for some students (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

High schools have grouped students by providing the prevalent three-tiered system of curriculum tracks or sequences of courses—college-preparatory, general education, and vocational education. They have also practiced ability grouping in academic subjects by putting together students of similar ability and level of achievement and gearing classes—for example, advanced placement, honors, developmental, or remedial—to different levels (Oakes, 1989).

An underlying assumption of tracking is that it is the best way to address the diversity of student populations, individual differences, and individual needs (Oakes, 1989; Stevens & Wood, 1987). It is a fact that some students are more able learners than others (Nevi, 1989). Tracking accounts for the differences between the "brightest students" and the "least able students" in the degree, depth, pace of learning, and in the relative appropriateness of assignments, learning materials, topics, discussions, and other ingredients of classroom practice (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Students receive instruction that is best suited to their abilities (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). By forming homogeneous groups of students of similar ability, teaching is easier and more effective (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Nevi, 1989).

Educators found that the obvious solution to addressing the inherent differences that existed among students was to individualize instruction, and teachers were able to do this by: assigning tasks to each student that were appropriate to his or her specific abilities and interests; using techniques and learning styles that were appropriate to each student's temperament; and moving each student ahead at his or her own pace (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Tracking became, in essence, an intermediate step toward totally individualized instruction (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Ability grouping or tracking was potentially a better practice and had many obvious advantages, at least for some students (e.g., advanced students), over some of the practices that had been used earlier. Students in the past who would have been "double promoted," for example, would have advanced an entire grade and skipped over all curricular areas in the passed-over grade (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

"Regular" ability grouping or tracking, however, offered little or no flexibility for students who needed high-ability, high-achievement, or high-challenge tracks in some subjects but lower tracks in other subjects (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). For this reason, some educators advocated flexible ability grouping (Gabriel, 2005). By flexibly grouping students both homogeneously and heterogeneously when necessary, lessons could be designed that were appropriate for each group (Gabriel, 2005).

Educators who argue for ability grouping or tracking believe academic work should be an intellectual challenge and not an intellectual obstacle and that students will have greater academic success if the curriculum is scaffolded (Gabriel, 2005). A tracking program that has the same high expectations for all students and only uses low-level tracking to provide remediation and to upgrade the skills of selected students is appropriate (Nevi, 1989).

Debates on the use of ability grouping or tracking in U.S. schools have oftentimes boiled down to arguments over equity versus excellence (Gallagher, 1995). The basic question about equity and excellence can be framed something like this: Is there validity and justice in providing accelerated and enriched learning opportunities for students with advanced learning skills while providing learning assistance and remediation to average and below-average students? Nevi (1989), argues that treating all students the same is not a formula for equity or excellence. Schools must be able to accommodate the existent differences among students, and one way to do this is to group students in tracks according to their abilities, needs, and interests.

Arguments against Ability Grouping or Tracking. It is the consensus of many educators that tracking is an ineffective and sometimes destructive approach, and it is a poor way to organize an educational program (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). It is difficult, if not impossible, to practically group students such that some are not overly challenged and some are not incredibly bored (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). The process and practice of tracking locks students into a particular track level for a school year or for a school career (Hallinan, 1996). Some schools have used intelligence to track students into high-, average- and low-ability learning groups for all of their studies and all aspects of the school program (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Oakes (1989) concludes that tracking contributes to mediocre schooling for most secondary students. A tracking program that limits educational opportunities for any student is inappropriate (Nevi, 1989).

The practice of tracking or ability grouping has been found not to improve the academic achievement of any group of students (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986; Oakes, 1985). Achievement is incrementally and continuously lowered as students are placed into more and earlier tracks (Kifer, 2001). In schools that do not practice homogeneous grouping or tracking, students perform at higher levels and achieve more (Kifer, 2001).

Advocates of educational change in the U.S. support heterogeneous grouping and elimination of academic tracking (Burris, Welner, Wiley, & Murphy, 2007). In fact, the elimination of "tracks" has been advocated since at least the late 1950s (Conant, 1959). The process of eliminating the ability grouping of students has been termed "un-tracking" or preferably, "de-tracking" (Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 1991; Brewer & Rees, 1995; Linder, 1991; Loveless, 1999). Schools that have eliminated ability grouping or tracking emphasize attending to the full range of student needs (Bradley, 2000). After many schools dissolved their homogeneous classes and formed heterogeneous or mixed-group classes, instruction was differentiated and a variety of strategies and assessments were utilized (Gabriel, 2005). However, it has been assumed by at least some educators that the consequences of mixed-ability grouping for slower learners are negative attitudes toward school and learning, reduced self-esteem and self-concepts, and lowered aspirations (Oakes, 1989). The opposite is evidently more often the case. That is, daily contact and competition with their brighter peers not only assists the achievement and academic growth of less-capable students but their attitudes, self-concepts, and aspirations are also improved (Oakes, 1989). Low achievers fall further behind when they are segregated and "gifted" students can and do contribute to the educational achievement of mainstream students (Martz, 1992).

Among the undesirable side effects of tracking are misclassifications of students, favoring some groups of students non-meritocratically over others, and rigid early selection preventing the eventual participation of students in most advanced classes (Kifer, 2001). Tracked students can be promoted out of one group and into another not based on the skills they have acquired but rather on the amount of time they have served (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). Tracking has also created scheduling limitations for students needing to take classes in more than one ability group (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).

Although students unquestionably bring differences with them to school, tracking exacerbates or exaggerates—widens rather than narrows—these initial differences among students (Oakes, 1989). The differences in the abilities of students are not fixed, innate, inalterable, or unidimensional (Smith, Smith, & De Lisi, 2001). There is, in fact, great variability even within the students assigned to a particular track. These differences include interest, effort, aptitude for various tasks, cognitive style, and learning speed (Oakes, 1989).

All students should have access and be exposed to a common curriculum even if their differences prevent them from benefiting equally (Oakes, 1989). As such, tracking is not appropriate for lower-track students if the intent is to provide them with an alternative curriculum that does not lead to high-status knowledge (Nevi, 1989). High-status knowledge can be defined as "the combination of skills, experiences, attitudes and academic content needed to create an informed and productive member of society" (Nevi, 1989, p. 302). When students have access and are exposed to different types and levels of knowledge, their opportunities to develop intellectual skills are quite different than what they would have been otherwise (Oakes, 1989).

With tracking as practiced in U.S. schools, a high-track elite group of students are exposed to common learning experiences that many low-track students are never exposed to (Kifer, 2001). High-track students, for example, have the most and best classroom opportunities to think critically and creatively and to solve interesting problems (Oakes, 1989).

Low-track students, conversely, are given learning tasks that are largely restricted to memorization and low-level comprehension (Oakes, 1989). When and if they are re-mainstreamed, they have fallen even farther behind and they will most likely never catch up. Tracking can transform a school from a place of learning into a place where students are warehoused until they are old enough to drop out (Cetron & Gayle, 1991).

Studies have found that students identified as average or slow that were inappropriately assigned to lower-track remedial classes by homogeneous ability grouping actually learned less, and their academic progress and prospects were slowed or worsened (Cetron & Gayle, 1991; Oakes, 1989; Schmidt, 1992; Stevens & Wood, 1987). In addition, students lost self-esteem and developed negative self-concepts. Lower-track students became labeled as the "dummy track" and they became stigmatized (Martz, 1992). "Remedial" classes turned into "basics" classes and "skills" classes and students remained labeled and stigmatized sometimes throughout the remainder of their educational careers (Brewer & Rees, 1995).

African American and Hispanic students have been disproportionately placed in low-ability science and math classes and have received the poorest instruction from the least qualified teachers (Lewis, 1999). Tracking and homogeneous grouping should be eliminated to improve the quality of education for these students (Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Tracking or ability grouping reinforces societal stereotypes and class divisions that still too often dominate American life, especially in inner-city and urban areas (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). The practice also unfairly reinforces existing stereotypes, prejudices, and biases of teachers (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Smith, Smith, and De Lisi (2001) recommend that teachers focus on student-performance information rather than use tracking to make judgments about students' abilities that may be biased, prejudicial, and/or stereotypical. Tracking or ability grouping has been found to foster social-class discrimination by putting lower-income, minority, and academically challenged students and higher-income, majority, and academically superior students in separate groups (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Minority, low-income, and "slow" students have been systematically, differentially, preferentially, and disproportionately placed in lower tracks or ability groups and, by virtue of such placement, have subsequently been exposed to a less demanding, enriching, or rewarding curriculum (Losen, 1999; Stevens & Wood, 1987).

The tracking and grouping system ends up reproducing the divisions of the class system, for example, the "gifted" track and honors programs for the affluent societal elite and general and vocational tracks for the working class (Stevens & Wood, 1987). White or Caucasian students are preferentially tracked into and dominate "gifted and talented" groups while minority and low-income students are preferentially tracked into low-achievement groups (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). The tracking system makes privilege and inequality transparent (Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Losen (1999) refers to tracking or ability grouping as an oblique method of school segregation that divides students by race, gender, and national origin. Academic grouping in U.S. schools is, in fact, de jure (by right or in accordance with law) segregation of students and deprives them of equal educational opportunity (Donelan & Neal, 1994). Losen contends that tracking or ability grouping denies equal educational opportunity to vast numbers of minorities in U.S. public schools. As practiced, it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Losen, 1999). By placing obstacles in the path of the most disadvantaged of American society, tracking forces schools into playing an active role in perpetuating educational and economic inequalities (Oakes, 1989). The grouping of students by ability for instruction has often led minority students to receive vastly different and unequal educational experiences and career possibilities (Goodlad, 1984; Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Discourse

Summary of Research Conclusions. At best, research studies of homogeneous grouping or tracking have yielded conflicting results regarding its effects on achievement, attitudes, self-concepts, and behavior (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Some studies have concluded that tracking may even harm low-aptitude students by limiting their contact with high achievers. Still others have found that tracking may actually help disadvantaged students (Koretz, 2001). However, there seems to be a growing consensus based on the evidence from abundant educational research that the use of ability groups and tracking is generally ineffective and largely inappropriate and that it disproportionately harms poor and minority students (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986; Oakes, 1989).

The concept of tracking in our schools evolved based on the prevalent view that success is determined by innate ability and not by concerted effort, hard work, and exposure to exemplary instruction (Kifer, 2001). However, in the U.S., most variation in achievement is actually related to tracking practices rather than to individual differences. Exposing more students more often to a common curriculum is related to higher performance and increased achievement. According to Kifer, the more differentiated a curriculum is, the lower achievement is.

It has been noted that there is little or no mobility among tracks once students have been "slotted" (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). However, Hallinan (1996) presents research showing that track mobility and change of direction in track assignments in high school is much greater than is generally assumed. The results of her research demonstrated that track mobility can provide differential learning opportunities for students, particularly females and low-income students.

A variety of plans have been tested to replace tracking and have found success in improved academic performance in both the experiments and in actual classrooms. Among the instructional methods and techniques that have been tried in place of tracking are cooperative learning, team teaching, and reduced class sizes (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). Ultimately, in order to improve tracking systems, policies that promote inclusive course taking or that affect other dimensions of tracking, such as electivity and scope, must be understood (Kelly, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

Ability groups: Collections of students that are put together roughly based on their similar levels of intelligence, academic aptitude, and/or achievement; they may be homogeneous groups formed typically within a classroom or tracked groups formed in separate classrooms.

Common curriculum: A sequence of courses consisting of similar high-status knowledge that all students have access and are exposed to.

De-tracking: Also referred to sometimes as un-tracking; process of eliminating the ability grouping of students.

Differentiated curriculum: A separate course of studies prescribed for various groups of students based on their ability or track.

Differentiated instruction: Teaching that is planned, geared, and implemented using various methods and strategies based on students' ability groups, levels, and/or curriculum tracks.

Heterogeneous grouping: The practice of grouping students without regard to their ability or other distinguishing characteristics.

High-status knowledge: Term coined and defined by Nevi (1989) as "the combination of skills, experiences, attitudes and academic content needed to create an informed and productive member of society." (p. 302)

Homogeneous grouping: The practice of putting together students of similar ability in groups within a classroom.

Individualized instruction: Teaching that is planned, geared, and implemented so that it is appropriate to the abilities, interests, and needs of specific students.

Mainstream: The most inclusive and least restrictive environment for the development of students in a school; the vast bulk or group of students of relatively average abilities put together in regular classrooms or other school settings.

Remediation: Instructional intervention that focuses on addressing the weaknesses of students so as to assist them in growing academically or in other ways.

Tracking: Also termed academic tracking, curriculum tracking, or ability grouping; the practice of putting students of relatively similar levels of ability together, typically in separate classrooms.

Track mobility: Movement of students among or between different ability groups in school resulting from changes of direction in assignments.

Bibliography

Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. (1991). The realities of un-tracking a high school. Educational Leadership, 48 (8), 16–17. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16638665&site=ehost-live

Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bobbit, J. F. (1912). Elimination of waste. Elementary School Teacher, (2), 270.

Borg, W. R. (1987) Applying educational research: A practical guide for teachers. New York, NY: Longman.

Bradley, A. (2000). A feast of offerings. Education Week, 20 (5), 32–34. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11083670&site=ehost-live

Brewer, D. J., & Rees, D. I. (1995). Detracking America's schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 210–214. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053707&site=ehost-live

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2012). Clustered for success. Educational Leadership, 69 (5), 41–45. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71100803&site=ehost-live

Burris, C. C., Welner, K. G., Wiley, E. W., & Murphy, J. (2007). A world-class curriculum for all. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 53–56. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24666230&site=ehost-live

Bygren, M. (2016). Ability grouping's effect on grades and the attainment of higher education. Sociology of Education, 89(2), 118–136. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2018 from EBSCO online database, Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=114451989&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Catsambis, S., Mulkey, L. M., Buttaro, A., Steelman, L., & Koch, P. (2012). Examining gender differences in ability group placement at the onset of schooling: The role of skills, behaviors, and teacher evaluations. Journal of Educational Research, 105 (1), 8–20. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67526912&site=ehost-live

Cetron, M., & Gayle, M. (1991). Educational renaissance: Our schools at the turn of the century. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Donelan, R. W., & Neal, G. A. (1994). The promise of Brown and the reality of academic grouping: The tracks of my tears. Journal of Negro Education, 63 (3), 376–387. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9502143919&site=ehost-live

Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, C. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Comments on 'the reform without cost'? Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 216–217. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053709&site=ehost-live

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Highstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill.

Hallinan, M. T. (1996). Track mobility in secondary school. Social Forces, 74 (3), 983–1002. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24259036&site=ehost-live

Kelly, S. (2007). The contours of tracking in North Carolina. High School Journal, 90 (4), 15–31. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24808794&site=ehost-live

Kifer, E. (2001). Large-scale assessment: Dimensions, dilemmas and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Koretz, G. (2001). What makes Sally learn? Business Week, (3746), 38. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4995858&site=ehost-live

Lawton, M. (1998). Researchers trace nation's TIMSS showing to 'basics.' Education Week, 17 (23), 6. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=328984&site=ehost-live

Lewis, A. C. (1990). Tracking. Education Digest, 56 (4), 59. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9101140839&site=ehost-live

Linder, B. L. (1991). Staff development essential to untracking. Educational Leadership, 49 (1), 93. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10478730&site=ehost-live Losen, D. J. (1999). Silent segregation in our nation's schools. Harvard Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Review, 34 (2), 517–546. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2176852&site=ehost-live

Loveless, T. (1999). Will tracking reform promote social equity? Educational Leadership, 56 (7), 28–32. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1792605&site=ehost-live

Nevi, C. (1989). In defense of tracking. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 300–303). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.

Noll, J. W. (1989). Does tracking support educational inequality? In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 288–289, 304–305). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1989). Keeping track. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 290–299). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.

Oakes, J. (1994). One more thought. Sociology of Education, 67 (2), 91. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9505152065&site=ehost-live

Reichert, N. (2013). Signifying difference: The nontraditional student and the honors program. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 14 (1), 23–32. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88352939&site=ehost-live

Schmidt, P. (1992). Tracking found to hurt prospects of low achievers. Education Week, 12 (2), 9. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19803870&site=ehost-live

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., & De Lisi, R. (2001). Natural classroom assessment: Designing seamless instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Stevens, E., Jr., & Wood, G. H. (1987). Justice, ideology and education: An introduction to the social foundations of education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Tice, T. N. (1994). High-school tracks. Education Digest, 59 (8), 50–51. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9404117667&site=ehost-live

Tice, T. N. (1997). Grouping students. Educational Digest, 63 (1), 47–50. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9709255576&site=ehost-live

Vladero, D. (1995). Tracking may not be as common a practice as assumed, study says. Education Week, 14 (32), 13.

West, P. (1990). 'Tracking' hampers minorities' access to math, science careers, study finds. Education Week, 10 (4), 8. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19646121&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Atkins, J. T., & Ellsesser, J. (2003). Tracking: The good, the bad and the questions. Educational Leadership, 61 (2), 44–47. Retrieved May 18, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11868864&site=ehost-live

Bradley, A. (2000). A feast of offerings. Education Week, 20 (5), 32–34. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11083670&site=ehost-live

Burris, C. C., Welner, K. G., Wiley, E. W., & Murphy, J. (2007). A world-class curriculum for all. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 53–56. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24666230&site=ehost-live

Camiel, L. D., Kostka-Rokosz, M., Tatatronis, G., & Goldman, J. (2017). Performance and perceptions of student teams created and stratified based on academic abilities. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(3), 1–7. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2018 from EBSCO online database, Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=122953291&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Comments on 'the reform without cost'? Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 216–217. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053709&site=ehost-live

Jaeger, R. M., & Hattie, J. A. (1995). Detracking America's schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 218–219. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053711&site=ehost-live

Loveless, T. (1999). Will tracking reform promote social equity? Educational Leadership, 56 (7), 28–32. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1792605&site=ehost-live

Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities' tracking within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96 (4), 681–690. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9507183560&site=ehost-live

Smith-Maddox, R., & Wheelock, A. (1995). Untracking and students' futures. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 222–228. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9512053714&site=ehost-live

Tice, T. N. (1997). Grouping students. Educational Digest, 63 (1), 47–50. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9709255576&site=ehost-live

Wendt, S., Foley, T., & Kerr, J. (2013). On reflection. Mathematics Teaching, (236), 24–26. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90148747&site=ehost-live